On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:37:41 -0700

Andrew Morton  wrote:
> > Following is comparison with a mmtom based on rc4.

quoted text
> > ===

> > [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/