On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:48:28PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 02:42 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Which architecture was this under? It sounds x86-ish? Is this on
> Westmere and more modern machines? What about Core2 architecture?
>
> Oh how did it work on
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:00:30AM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 02:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On 07/03/2012 06:15 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> >> zsmapbench measures the copy-based mapping at ~560 cycles for a
> >> map/unmap operation on spanned object for both KVM guest and bare-me
On 07/11/2012 02:42 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
Which architecture was this under? It sounds x86-ish? Is this on
Westmere and more modern machines? What about Core2 architecture?
Oh how did it work on AMD Phenom boxes?
>>>
>>> I don't have a Phenom box but I have an Athlon
>>> Which architecture was this under? It sounds x86-ish? Is this on
>>> Westmere and more modern machines? What about Core2 architecture?
>>>
>>> Oh how did it work on AMD Phenom boxes?
>>
>> I don't have a Phenom box but I have an Athlon X2 I can try out.
>> I'll get this information next Monday.
On 07/11/2012 02:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Today, I tested zsmapbench in my embedded board(ARM).
> tlb-flush is 30% faster than copy-based so it's always not win.
> I think it depends on CPU speed/cache size.
After you pointed this out, I decided to test this on my
Raspberry Pi, the only ARM sys
On 07/11/2012 02:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 06:15 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> zsmapbench measures the copy-based mapping at ~560 cycles for a
>> map/unmap operation on spanned object for both KVM guest and bare-metal,
>> while the page table mapping was ~1500 cycles on a VM and ~760
Hi everybody,
I realized it by Seth's mention yesterday that Greg already merged this series
I should have hurried but last week I have no time. :(
On 07/03/2012 06:15 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> This patchset removes the current x86 dependency for zsmalloc
> and introduces some performance impro
On 07/06/2012 10:07 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 07/04/2012 03:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 04:15:48PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
>>> This exposed an interesting and unexpected result: in all
>>> cases that I tried, copying the objects that span pages instead
>>>
On 07/04/2012 03:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 04:15:48PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> This exposed an interesting and unexpected result: in all
>> cases that I tried, copying the objects that span pages instead
>> of using the page table to map them, was _always_
9 matches
Mail list logo
