Earlier, I wrote:
> > After disabling DIAGNOSTIC and acpicpu, they are:
> >
> > 2016.09.06.06.27.173319.87 real 9767.39 user 4184.24 sys
> > 2019.10.18.17.16.503525.65 real 10309.00 user 11618.57 sys
> > 2020.03.17.22.03.412419.52 real 9577.58 user 9602.81
Andrew,
You wrote:
> > 2016.09.06.06.27.173319.87 real 9767.39 user 4184.24 sys
> > 2019.10.18.17.16.503525.65 real 10309.00 user 11618.57 sys
> > 2020.03.17.22.03.412419.52 real 9577.58 user 9602.81 sys
> > 2020.03.22.19.56.072363.06 real 9482.36
Hi Andreas,
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:39:44AM +0200, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> On Wednesday, I said:
> > I will rerun the 24-core tests with these disabled for comparison.
>
> Done. To recap, with a stock GENERIC kernel, the numbers were:
>
> 2016.09.06.06.27.173321.55 real 9853.49
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 08:44:13PM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> It's a software problem right now. The ACPI idle loop doesn't currenly
> enter a low power sleep state because there are issues with interrupts to
> solve first. Nevertheless it's very heavy on I/O port access, takes locks
> and
On Wednesday, I said:
> I will rerun the 24-core tests with these disabled for comparison.
Done. To recap, with a stock GENERIC kernel, the numbers were:
2016.09.06.06.27.173321.55 real 9853.49 user 5156.92 sys
2019.10.18.17.16.503767.63 real 10376.15 user 16100.99 sys
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:44:19PM +, Mike Pumford wrote:
> On 24/03/2020 21:47, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > DIAGNOSTIC and acpicpu are disabled in all kernels but they are otherwise
> > GENERIC. The 2020-04-?? kernel is HEAD plus the remaining changes from the
> > ad-namecache branch.
> >
>
On 24/03/2020 21:47, Andrew Doran wrote:
DIAGNOSTIC and acpicpu are disabled in all kernels but they are otherwise
GENERIC. The 2020-04-?? kernel is HEAD plus the remaining changes from the
ad-namecache branch.
Curious to know why acpicpu is a performance hit. Is it just that it
Andrew,
You wrote:
> Thank you for doing this, and for bisecting the performance losses over
> time (I fixed the vnode regression you found BTW).
Thank you for the fix and the other performance improvements!
> There are two options enabled in -current that spoil performance on multi
> processor
Hi Andreas.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:11:17PM +0200, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> In September and November, I reported some measurements of the amount
> of system time it takes to build a NetBSD-8/amd64 release on different
> versions of -current/amd64. I have now repeated the measurements
Hi all,
In September and November, I reported some measurements of the amount
of system time it takes to build a NetBSD-8/amd64 release on different
versions of -current/amd64. I have now repeated the measurements with
a couple of newer versions of -current on the same hardware, and here
are the
10 matches
Mail list logo
