Zach Brown wrote:
Pretty close race - vmalloc is slightly faster if anything.I don't think that test tells us anything interesting about the relative load on the TLB. What would be interesting is seeing the effect vmalloc()ed hashes have on a concurrently running load that puts heavy pressure on the TLB.
Bzip2 isn't that kind of load? Regards, Daniel - 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/
- References:
- Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- From: Mark Fasheh <[email protected]>
- Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- From: Mark Fasheh <[email protected]>
- Re: Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- From: Mark Fasheh <[email protected]>
- Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance
- From: Mark Fasheh <[email protected]>
- Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance
- From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>
- Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance
- From: Zach Brown <[email protected]>
- Ocfs2 performance bugs of doom
- Prev by Date: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: core EDAC support code
- Previous by thread: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance
- Next by thread: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Ocfs2 performance
- Index(es):
 |