On 30.10.2007 [16:36:11 -0500], Steve Fox wrote: > Another spin of this patch, now in multiple pieces. > > There was no performance hit for forking the hugetlbfs mapping creation > on x86_64 or x86, as can be seen below (averages of 5 runs), nor for > 64-bit binaries. > > Many thanks for Adam, Nish and David for the education while working > through this problem. > > stream.c > x86_64, 1.8GB array x86, 1.6GB array > 1.2 git 1.2 git > Copy: 1369.1727 1370.2438 260.04716 262.1087 > Scale: 1372.91998 1374.49128 256.67262 256.86326 > Add: 1464.8951 1465.13884 285.72866 288.53276 > Triad: 1468.5991 1468.74888 274.69788 274.58076
All 3 applied. -- Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list Libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
