On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:17:59PM -0400, Malita, Florin wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 11:47 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > Which is an apples to oranges comparison. 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 is > > actually based on 2.6.12rc6. I'll be interested in seeing results > > rerun against this kernel. > > Back with some apples: http://lufs.sourceforge.net/unixbench.html > > Now I have: > > 1. Linux 2.6.12-rc6 (nodebug+p4+nose+nohm+lean): 355.7 > 2. Linux 2.6.11.12 (nodebug+p4+nose+nohm+lean): 345.8 > 3. Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (nodebug+p4+nose+nohm+lean): 269.3 > 4. Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (nodebug+p4+nose+ nohm): 253.1 > 5. Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (nodebug+p4): 239.4 > 6. Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (nodebug): 236.7 > 7: Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 (orig): 213.2 > 8: SunOS 5.11 (orig): 122.3 > > (1, 2 & 3 here share the same configuration) > > So 2.6.12-rc6 is slightly better overall than 2.6.11.12 and still a lot > faster than FC4 (especially in the syscall overhead & pipe throughput > area). Thanks, I'll take a look at this later. > Am I correct in assuming the FC kernel doesn't use the vsyscall/sysenter > mechanism thus taking a serious performance hit on P4s? Correct. (Unless you have a CPU with NX). I think we'd also be able to reenable sysenter if we booted with exec_sheild=0, but currently we don't handle that case (we just always disable if no NX present) Dave -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
