On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:18:31 -0600 (CST)
Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> > I was expecting to see at least (specifically) 4.291 ns improvement, as
> > this is the measured[1] cost of preempt_{disable,enable] on my system.
>
> Right. Those calls are taken out of the fastpaths by this patchset for
> the CONFIG_PREEMPT case. So the numbers that you got do not make much
> sense to me.
True, that is also that I'm saying. I'll try to figure out that is
going on, tomorrow.
You are welcome to run my test harness:
http://netoptimizer.blogspot.dk/2014/11/announce-github-repo-prototype-kernel.html
https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/getting_started.rst
Just load module: time_bench_kmem_cache1
https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/lib/time_bench_kmem_cache1.c
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
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>