From: Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au>
To: kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Cc: dean gaudet <dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:00:27 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <39FD8D0B.B6C0C772@uow.edu.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <39FB02D5.9AF89277@uow.edu.au>, <39F957BC.4289FF10@uow.edu.au> <39F92187.A7621A09@timpanogas.org> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0010270257550.18660-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu> <20001027094613.A18382@gruyere.muc.suse.de> <200010271257.VAA24374@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp> <39FAF4C6.3BB04774@uow.edu.au> <39FB02D5.9AF89277@uow.edu.au> <200010300927.SAA05368@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton writes:
> >
> > I agree with me. Could you please test the scalability
> > of this?
>
> Here is the result, measured on 8-way profusion.
Thank you!
> Andrew posted two paches, so called P1 and P2.
Was `P2' the shorter one? It looks like it.
> Req/s
> test10-pre5: 2255 bad performance
> ----
> test9+P2: 5243
> test10-pre5+P1: 5187
> test10-pre5+P2: 5258
>
> P2 may be a little bit better.
I'd be interested in seeing the -DSINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT
figures.
Dean, it looks like the same problem will occur with flock()-based
serialisation. Does Apache/Linux ever use that option?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-10-30 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200010261405.XAA19135@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
[not found] ` <200010250736.QAA12373@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010251242050.943-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
[not found] ` <200010260138.KAA17028@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
2000-10-27 6:24 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()? (Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) kumon
2000-10-27 6:32 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: " Jeff V. Merkey
2000-10-27 7:13 ` Alexander Viro
2000-10-27 7:46 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-27 10:23 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-27 10:25 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-27 12:57 ` [PATCH] " kumon
2000-10-28 15:46 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-28 15:58 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-28 16:05 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-10-28 16:20 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Alan Cox
2000-10-29 19:45 ` dean gaudet
2000-10-30 6:29 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-30 15:28 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-10-30 16:36 ` Rik van Riel
2000-10-30 18:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-10-28 16:46 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Andrew Morton
2000-10-30 9:27 ` kumon
2000-10-30 15:00 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2000-10-30 23:24 ` dean gaudet
2000-11-04 5:08 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange " Andrew Morton
2000-11-04 6:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-11-04 10:54 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of Alan Cox
2000-11-04 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-11-05 16:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-05 20:21 ` dean gaudet
2000-11-05 22:43 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-04 20:03 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) dean gaudet
2000-11-04 20:42 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange Alan Cox
2000-11-04 20:11 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) dean gaudet
2000-11-04 20:43 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange Alan Cox
2000-11-05 4:52 ` dean gaudet
2000-10-31 15:36 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Andrew Morton
2000-11-02 12:50 ` kumon
2000-11-01 1:02 ` kumon
2000-11-02 11:09 ` kumon
2000-11-04 5:07 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-27 8:17 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2000-11-04 5:55 ` Preemptive scheduling of woken-up processes kumon
2000-10-27 10:11 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) kumon
2000-11-05 4:19 [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange " Dave Wagner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=39FD8D0B.B6C0C772@uow.edu.au \
--to=andrewm@uow.edu.au \
--cc=dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org \
--cc=kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).