Kurt Garloff wrote:
Hi Nick,
Hi Kurt!
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:37:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Ian Pratt wrote:
fork: 166 -> 235 (40% slowdown)
exec: 857 -> 1003 (17% slowdown)
I'm guessing this is down to the 4 level pagetables. This is rather a
surprise as I thought the compiler would optimi
Hi Nick,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:37:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Ian Pratt wrote:
> >fork: 166 -> 235 (40% slowdown)
> >exec: 857 -> 1003 (17% slowdown)
> >
> >I'm guessing this is down to the 4 level pagetables. This is rather a
> >surprise as I thought the compiler would optimise most of
> There are some changes in the current -bk tree (which are a
> bit in-flux at the moment) which introduce some optimisations.
>
> They should bring 2-level performance close to par with 2.6.10.
> If not, complain again :)
The good news is that with a BK snapshot from today
[md5key=4238cb8e36_Z5
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:16:40PM +, Ian Pratt wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> When we upgraded arch xen/x86 to kernel 2.6.11, we noticed a slowdown
> on a number of micro-benchmarks. In order to investigate, I built
> native (non Xen) i686 uniprocessor kernels for 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 with
> the same c
Ian Pratt wrote:
Folks,
When we upgraded arch xen/x86 to kernel 2.6.11, we noticed a slowdown
on a number of micro-benchmarks. In order to investigate, I built
native (non Xen) i686 uniprocessor kernels for 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 with
the same configuration and ran lmbench-3.0-a3 on them. The test
mac
5 matches
Mail list logo
