Luck, Tony wrote on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 8:03 AM > Thanks for keeping this alive. Previous measurements on long > format VHPT were mostly close to neutral performance-wise with > short format ... This is a fairly gentle comments :-) Digging up my result of performance evaluation on database workload, the regression is quite big at 2.8%. I'm not that happy at all :-( > so this is still waiting for the killer-app in > the form of another patch that actually uses features of the > long format VHPT to do something that can't easily be done by > the short format Database workload can be the potential killer-app .... > to give me an incentive to complicate the code > by adding yet another CONFIG option. In fact, I'd prefer to see > a compelling use case for long format so that it would be clear > that the right thing to do would be to just remove short format > and replace it with long format, but I don't expect that things > will ever be that simple :-( Boot time option to the rescue! I have a patch that does just like that. Though first order of business is to make lvhpt to perform on large workload. If I recall correctly, lvhpt introduces performance regression on certain components of cpu2000. - Ken - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|