[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4999C1CE.8080002@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:43:10 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)
Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:17:58PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Hi Mel,
>>
>> Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> I haven't done much digging in here yet. Between the large page bug and
>>> other patches in my inbox, I haven't had the chance yet but that doesn't
>>> stop anyone else taking a look.
>> So how big does an improvement/regression have to be not to be
>> considered within noise? I mean, I randomly picked one of the results
>> ("x86-64 speccpu integer tests") and ran it through my "summarize"
>> script and got the following results:
>>
>> min max mean std_dev
>> slub 0.96 1.09 1.01 0.04
>> slub-min 0.95 1.10 1.00 0.04
>> slub-rvrt 0.90 1.08 0.99 0.05
>> slqb 0.96 1.07 1.00 0.04
>>
>
> Well, it doesn't make a whole pile of sense to get the average of these ratios
> or the deviation between them. Each of the tests behave very differently.
Uhm, yes. I need to learn to read one of these days.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists