On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:37:41 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

quoted text
> > Following is comparison with a mmtom based on rc4.
> > ===
> > [rc4mm1]
> > Execl Throughput                           3004.4 lps   (29.6 secs, 3 samples)
> > C Compiler Throughput                      1017.9 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               5726.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)               1124.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               576.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         125446.5 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > 
> > [rc5mm1]
> > Execl Throughput                           3006.5 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
> > C Compiler Throughput                      1006.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4863.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                943.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               482.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         124804.9 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > ==
> > 15% down in shell script test. Any idea ? (scheduler ?)
> 
> Dunno.  There is a largel number of debugging patches at the tail of
> the series so they should be the first thing to eliminate.
> 
But I compare mmtom and mmtom, both includes debug series at the tail of series.
I'll revisit this later.

Thanks,
-Kame  

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/