On 02/07/18 04:44, Chintan Pandya wrote: > > > On 2/5/2018 5:53 PM, Chintan Pandya wrote: >> >>> >>> My question was trying to determine whether the numbers reported above >>> are for a debug configuration or a production configuration. >> My reported numbers are from debug configuration. >> >>> not a production configuration, I was requesting the numbers for a >>> production configuration. >> I'm working on it. But please expect some delay in my response for this. As >> I mentioned earlier, I need to work with few teams to get these numbers. >> >> >>> show a significant boot time reduction from the patch then there is >>> less justification for adding complexity to the existing code. I >>> prefer to use simpler data structures and algorithms __if__ extra >>> complexity does not provide any advantage. The balance between >>> complexity and benefits is a core software engineering issue. >>> >> Ok > > Avg Kernel boot time comparison in production set up: > > [0] Base: 4519ms > [1] 4115ms (~400ms improvement) > [2] 4115ms (~400ms improvement) > [3] 4177ms (~340ms improvement) > > Full data: > [1] 1024 sized pre-populated cache > ITR-1 ITR-2 ITR-3 ITR-4 Avg > 4115 4123 4124 4107 4115 > > [2] Dynamic sized cache allocation/free > ITR-1 ITR-2 ITR-3 ITR-4 Avg > 4122 4131 4106 4118 4115 > > [3] Fixed 64 sized cache > ITR-1 ITR-2 ITR-3 ITR-4 Avg > 4153 4186 4198 4181 4177 > > > [1] is my experimental patch and dirty enough to not get merged anywhere. So, > I will not push it. > > > > Chintan
Thank you very much. This looks like a real improvement to me. I'll rebase my patches, updated to address the comments, on 4.16-rc1. -Frank
