On Mon, Mar 28 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:38:23PM -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > We have measured that the following patch give measurable performance gain
> > for industry standard db benchmark. Comments?
>
> Dave Jones wrote on Monday, March 28, 2005 7:00 PM
> > If you can't publish results from that certain benchmark due its stupid
> > restrictions, could you also try running an alternative benchmark that
> > you can show results from ?
> >
> > These nebulous claims of 'measurable gains' could mean anything.
> > I'm assuming you see a substantial increase in throughput, but
> > how much is it worth in exchange for complicating the code?
>
> Are you asking for micro-benchmark result? I had a tough time last time
> around when I presented micro-benchmark result on LKML. I got kicked in
> the butt for lack of evidence with performance data running real bench on
> real hardware.
>
> I guess either way, I'm bruised one way or the other.
Just _some_ results would be nice, Dave is right in that 'measurable
gains' doesn't really say anything at all. Personally I would like to
see a profile diff, for instance. And at least something like 'we get 1%
gain bla bla'.
Now, about the patch. I cannot convince myself that it is not deadlock
prone, if someone waits for a bvec to be freed. Will slab reclaim always
prune the bio slab and push the bvecs back into the mempool, or can
there be cases where this doesn't happen?
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
