Cedric Le Goater wrote: > 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. I do not :) I am going to send my view of pid namespaces this evening or tomorrow morning (I am in GMT+3 time zone :)). Are you going to fix your patches for comparison? > C. > Thanks, Pavel _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers