> > Testcase Time: Min Max Avg StdDev > > %Change > > numa01.sh Real: 478.45 565.90 515.11 30.87 > > 16.29% > > numa01.sh Sys: 207.79 271.04 232.94 21.33 > > -15.8% > > numa01.sh User: 39763.93 47303.12 43210.73 2644.86 > > 14.04% > > numa02.sh Real: 60.00 61.46 60.78 0.49 > > 0.871% > > numa02.sh Sys: 15.71 25.31 20.69 3.42 > > 17.35% > > numa02.sh User: 5175.92 5265.86 5235.97 32.82 > > 0.464% > > numa03.sh Real: 776.42 834.85 806.01 23.22 > > -7.47% > > numa03.sh Sys: 114.43 128.75 121.65 5.49 > > -19.5% > > numa03.sh User: 60773.93 64855.25 62616.91 1576.39 > > -5.36% > > numa04.sh Real: 456.93 511.95 482.91 20.88 > > 2.930% > > numa04.sh Sys: 178.09 460.89 356.86 94.58 > > -11.3% > > numa04.sh User: 36312.09 42553.24 39623.21 2247.96 > > 0.246% > > numa05.sh Real: 393.98 493.48 436.61 35.59 > > 0.677% > > numa05.sh Sys: 164.49 329.15 265.87 61.78 > > 38.92% > > numa05.sh User: 33182.65 36654.53 35074.51 1187.71 > > 3.368% > > > > Ideally this change shouldn't have affected performance. > > Ideally you go on here to explain why it does in fact do affect > performance.. :-)
I know it looks bad, but I have been unable to figure out why this patch affects performance. I repeated the experiment multiple times to recheck if it was not a one off problem. While there is a variance in different runs, we do see a change in numbers before and after this patch atleast on my machine.
