Pavel Emelianov wrote: > Cedric Le Goater wrote: >> Pavel and all, > > [snip] > >> findings are : >> >> * definitely better results for suka's patchset. suka's patchset is >> also getting better results with unixbench on a 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 but >> the values are really dispersed. can you confirm ? >> * suka's patchset would benefit from some optimization in init_upid() >> and dup_struct_pid() > > We have found the reason why Suka's patches showed better performance. > Some time ago I sent a letter saying that proc_flush_task() actually > never worked with his patches - that's the main problem. After removing > this call from my patches the results turned to those similar to my. > > I'd also like to note that broken-out set of patches is not git bisect > safe at all. The very first patch of his own OOPSes the node. Some > subsequent patches contain misprints that break the compilation, etc. > > So I ask you again - let us prepare our patches again and compare the > performance one more time. OK. that's fine with me. I'm not exactly in a neutral zone but I have the blades ready for the next drop of patches. I'll torture them if you don't mind. C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
