On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 09:26 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 08:29 +0800, Tim Chen wrote: > > + 7.30% anon_vma_clone_batch > what are you testing? I didn't see Andi's batch anon->lock for fork > patches are merged in 2.6.39. Good spot that certainly isn't plain .39. It looks like those (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=130533041726258) are similar to Linus' patch, except Linus takes the hard line that the root lock should stay the same. Let me try Linus' patch first to see if this workload can trigger his WARN. /me mutters something about patches in attachments and rebuilds. OK, the WARN doesn't trigger, but it also doesn't improve things (quite the opposite in fact): -tip 260.092 messages/sec/core +sirq-rcu 271.078 messages/sec/core +linus 262.435 messages/sec/core So Linus' patch makes the throughput drop from 271 to 262, weird. /me goes re-test without the sirq-rcu bits mixed in just to make sure. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href