[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D662DBF.2020706@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:06:55 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mtosatti@...hat.com, xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Weight-balanced binary tree + KVM growable memory
slots using wbtree
On 02/23/2011 09:28 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> I had forgotten about<1M mem, so actually the slot configuration was:
>
> 0:<1M
> 1: 1M - 3.5G
> 2: 4G+
>
> I stacked the deck in favor of the static array (0: 4G+, 1: 1M-3.5G, 2:
> <1M), and got these kernbench results:
>
> base (stdev) reorder (stdev) wbtree (stdev)
> --------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> Elapsed | 42.809 (0.19) | 42.160 (0.22) | 42.305 (0.23) |
> User | 115.709 (0.22) | 114.358 (0.40) | 114.720 (0.31) |
> System | 41.605 (0.14) | 40.741 (0.22) | 40.924 (0.20) |
> %cpu | 366.9 (1.45) | 367.4 (1.17) | 367.6 (1.51) |
> context | 7272.3 (68.6) | 7248.1 (89.7) | 7249.5 (97.8) |
> sleeps | 14826.2 (110.6) | 14780.7 (86.9) | 14798.5 (63.0) |
>
> So, wbtree is only slightly behind reordering, and the standard
> deviation suggests the runs are mostly within the noise of each other.
> Thanks,
Doesn't this indicate we should use reordering, instead of a new data
structure?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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