> My previous testing with unix sockets prompted me to do a few lmbench
> runs with 2.4.19 and 2.5.65. The results have me a bit concerned, as
> there is no area where 2.5 is faster and several where it is
> significantly slower.
>
> In particular:
>
> stat is 8 times worse
> open/close are 7 times worse
> fork is twice as expensive
> tcp latency is 5 times worse
> file deletion and mmap are both twice as expensive
> tcp bandwidth is 5 times worse
>
> Optimizing for muliple processors and heavy loads is nice, but this
> looks like its happening at the cost of basic performance. Is this
> really the route we should be taking?
I think you're jumping to conclusions about what causes this - let's
actually try to find the real root cause. These things have many different
causes ... for instance, rmap has been found to be a problem in some
workloads (especially things like the fork stuff). If you want to
try 65-mjb1 with and without the the shared pagetable stuff, you
may get some different results. (if you have stability problems, try
doing a patch -p1 -R of 400-shpte, it seems a little fragile right now).
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mbligh/2.5.65/
Also, if you can get kernel profiles for each test, that'd help to work
out the root cause.
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 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 22:00:41 EST