On 04/15/2013 10:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >>> > > ** Initial writers ** >>> > > threads: 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 >>> > > baseline: 1103360 912585 500065 260503 128918 62039 34799 18718 9376 >>> > > patched: 2127476 2155029 2345079 1942158 1127109 571899 127090 52939 25950 >>> > > speed-up(times): 1.93 2.36 4.69 7.46 8.74 9.22 3.65 2.83 2.77 >> > >> > I'm a _bit_ surprised that iozone scales _that_ badly especially while >> > threads<nr_cpus. Is this normal for iozone? What are the units and >> > metric there, btw? > The units is KB/sec per process (I used 'Avg throughput per process' from > iozone report). So it scales not that badly. > I will use total children throughput next time to avoid confusion. Wow. Well, it's cool that your patches just fix it up inherently. I'd still really like to see some analysis exactly where the benefit is coming from though. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>