On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 11:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:58 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:56:12PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:14:03AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30:02AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > > > This adds significant overhead for the !PREEMPT case adding lots of code > > > > > > in critical paths all over the place. > > > > > I want to measure it. Can you suggest benchmarks to try? > > > > > > > > AIM9 (reaim9)? > > > Below are results for kernel 2.6.32-rc8 with and without the patch (only > > > this single patch is applied). > > > > > Forgot to tell. The results are average between 5 different runs. > > Would be good to also report the variance over those 5 runs, allows us > to see if the difference is within the noise. Got pointed to the fact that there is a stddev column right there. Must be Monday or something ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
