>> Did you actually read the previous email?
>> Same config file? Same tree? same compiler (gcc 2.95.4?)
>
> gcc2.95.4; 2.5.63-bk5 w/& w/o, no patchkits prior, .config below
Wildly different config being compile tested => difference in speed.ls
>> I think we're talking about different things:
>> 1. Need to isolate what's causing the 6s improvement you're seeing.
>> Can you generate profiles & time output for before and after the patch,
>> and describe the test you're running (presumably make -j).
>> 2. SDET degredation. I'll try the additional patch you sent out on that.
>
> It's not hard to figure out.
Part 2 may not be ... part 1 is ;-)
>> 60 125.0% page_address
>> 12 63.2% __pagevec_lru_add_active
>> 11 47.8% bad_range
>> 10 15.9% kmap_atomic
>
> All users of page_zone(). The question you're (hopefully) about to
> answer is whether it was the division or something else like codesize
> or the newly introduced indirection.
>
> If that is still seeing page_zone() suckage, I'll rip zone_table[] out
> of it entirely.
Still degraded: diffprofile:
781 1.6% total
346 1.0% default_idle
217 10.1% __down
79 12.0% __wake_up
51 70.8% page_address
32 66.7% kmap_atomic
24 5.3% page_remove_rmap
16 19.3% clear_page_tables
14 4.6% release_pages
13 33.3% path_release
13 6.7% __copy_to_user_ll
13 260.0% bad_range
11 1.3% do_schedule
10 15.6% pte_alloc_one
M.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:19 EST