On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:38:16 -0400 Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Hmm, after a opcontrol --reset i see the same issue now. Don't know what's
> > wrong, but it must be something different from the .20 perfctr
On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:38:16 -0400 Benjamin LaHaise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Hmm, after a opcontrol --reset i see the same issue now. Don't know what's
wrong, but it must be something different from the .20 perfctr allocation
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Hmm, after a opcontrol --reset i see the same issue now. Don't know what's
> wrong, but it must be something different from the .20 perfctr allocation
> problem.
>
> It looks like the daemon doesn't get any data from the kernel
I
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Hmm, after a opcontrol --reset i see the same issue now. Don't know what's
wrong, but it must be something different from the .20 perfctr allocation
problem.
It looks like the daemon doesn't get any data from the kernel
I finally
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 04:45:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:22:05 +0200
> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > 2.6.21:
> > >
> > > akpm2:/home/akpm# opreport -l /boot/vmlinux-$(uname -r) | head -50
> > > opreport error: No sample file found: try running
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 04:45:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:22:05 +0200
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.6.21:
akpm2:/home/akpm# opreport -l /boot/vmlinux-$(uname -r) | head -50
opreport error: No sample file found: try running opcontrol --dump
or
On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:22:05 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2.6.21:
> >
> > akpm2:/home/akpm# opreport -l /boot/vmlinux-$(uname -r) | head -50
> > opreport error: No sample file found: try running opcontrol --dump
> > or specify a session containing sample files
>
> For me it
On Friday 04 May 2007 23:33:47 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007 13:42:12 -0700
>
> 2.6.20:
>
> akpm2:/home/akpm> opcontrol --start-daemon
> /usr/bin/opcontrol: line 1098: /dev/oprofile/0/enabled: No such file or
> directory
> /usr/bin/opcontrol: line 1098: /dev/oprofile/0/event: No
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I'd investigate further, but someone has gone and broken oprofile.
>
Did you just notice that? Apparently it's been broken since 2.6.21-final.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Fri, 4 May 2007 14:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > So the patch took the average system time from 4.42 seconds up to 4.582
> > seconds. Nice slowdown!
>
> All of that from a memset and a list head init on a
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> So the patch took the average system time from 4.42 seconds up to 4.582
> seconds. Nice slowdown!
All of that from a memset and a list head init on a cacheline we already
use?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
On Fri, 4 May 2007 13:42:12 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd investigate further, but someone has gone and broken oprofile.
Damn, we went and merged that bustage?
2.6.20:
akpm2:/home/akpm> opcontrol --start-daemon
/usr/bin/opcontrol: line 1098: /dev/oprofile/0/enabled: No
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
> this around?).
>
> TCP
On Thu, 3 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:08:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> > strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> > constructor has definitely no negative impact
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:08:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
> this around?).
Cache effects are not so
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:08:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
this around?).
Cache effects are not so easily
On Thu, 3 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:08:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
constructor has definitely no negative impact so why
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
this around?).
TCP STREAM
On Fri, 4 May 2007 13:42:12 -0700
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd investigate further, but someone has gone and broken oprofile.
Damn, we went and merged that bustage?
2.6.20:
akpm2:/home/akpm opcontrol --start-daemon
/usr/bin/opcontrol: line 1098: /dev/oprofile/0/enabled: No such
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
So the patch took the average system time from 4.42 seconds up to 4.582
seconds. Nice slowdown!
All of that from a memset and a list head init on a cacheline we already
use?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
On Fri, 4 May 2007 14:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
So the patch took the average system time from 4.42 seconds up to 4.582
seconds. Nice slowdown!
All of that from a memset and a list head init on a cacheline we
Andrew Morton wrote:
I'd investigate further, but someone has gone and broken oprofile.
Did you just notice that? Apparently it's been broken since 2.6.21-final.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Friday 04 May 2007 23:33:47 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007 13:42:12 -0700
2.6.20:
akpm2:/home/akpm opcontrol --start-daemon
/usr/bin/opcontrol: line 1098: /dev/oprofile/0/enabled: No such file or
directory
/usr/bin/opcontrol: line 1098: /dev/oprofile/0/event: No such file
On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:22:05 +0200
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.6.21:
akpm2:/home/akpm# opreport -l /boot/vmlinux-$(uname -r) | head -50
opreport error: No sample file found: try running opcontrol --dump
or specify a session containing sample files
For me it works on a
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The change looks nice, but I'd microbenchmark it with a
> write-to-ext2-on-ramdisk
> or something like that.
Hmmm... How does one benchmark buffer head performance? Guess just by
copying files? Not sure if the following will cut it.
Two tests. First
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> > strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> > constructor has definitely no
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
> this around?).
>
> TCP
Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
this around?).
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to localhost (127.0.0.1)
port 0 AF_INET
Recv
Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
this around?).
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to localhost (127.0.0.1)
port 0 AF_INET
Recv
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
this around?).
TCP STREAM
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
constructor has definitely no negative
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
The change looks nice, but I'd microbenchmark it with a
write-to-ext2-on-ramdisk
or something like that.
Hmmm... How does one benchmark buffer head performance? Guess just by
copying files? Not sure if the following will cut it.
Two tests. First
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
strong
34 matches
Mail list logo
