From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751087AbYHLS5i (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:57:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751754AbYHLS52 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:57:28 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:58685 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751654AbYHLS51 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:57:27 -0400 Message-ID: <48A1DD09.8000909@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:57:13 -0500 From: Christoph Lameter User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 References: <48A086B6.2000901@linux-foundation.org> <20080811.141501.01468546.davem@davemloft.net> <48A0B037.501@linux-foundation.org> <87r68u1zeb.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> In-Reply-To: <87r68u1zeb.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: > Christoph Lameter writes: > >> Maybe what we are seeing is general bloat in kernel execution paths >> due to the growth in complexity? > > Wouldn't surprise me. Have you considered doing profiles? If I get the time I will try to do that. Another way to understand why we are accepting the regressions here may be that we give more consideration to real time issues and deterministic performance these days. Hardware speed gains compensate for the additional bloat? (I ran the old kernels on cutting edge hardware after all).