On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:26:34AM +0100, Pavel Machek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > 10% gain in speed is NOT worth major complexity increase. > > > > Should I create a patch to remove rb-tree implementation? > > If you can replace them with something simpler, and no worse than 10% > slower in worst case, then go ahead. (We actually tried to do that at > some point, only to realize that efence stresses vm subsystem in very > unexpected/unfriendly way).
Agh, only 10% in the worst case. I think you can not even imagine what tricks network uses to get at least aditional 1% out of the box. Using such logic you can just abandon any further development, since it work as is right now. > > That practice is stupid IMO. > > Too bad. Now you can start Linux fork called Eugenix. > > (But really, Linux is not "maximum performance at any cost". Linux is > "how fast can we get that while keeping it maintainable?"). Should I read it like: we do not understand what it is and thus we do not want it? > That is why, while arguing syslets vs. kevents, you need need to argue > not "kevents are faster because they avoid context switch overhead", > but "kevents are _so much_ faster that it is worth the added > complexity". And Ingo seems to showing you they are not _so much_ > faster. Threadlets behave much worse without event driven model, events can behave worse without backed threads, they are mutually compensating. I posted kevent/epoll benchmarks and related design issues too many times both with handmade applications (which might be broken as hell) and popular open-source servers to repeat them again. > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) > http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- Evgeniy Polyakov - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
