Hi,
On Friday 08 June 2007, Nadia Derbey wrote:
> Ingo Oeser wrote:
> > ... together with this means 4*256 -> 1k of precious stack space used.
> > Please consider either lowering IPCS_MAX_SCAN_ENTRIES or kmalloc() that.
> You're completely right, but trying to lower the extraction size, I'm
> afraid this will have an impact on performances.
>
> Here are the results of a small test I did: I have run ctxbench on both
> the 256 and and 16 entries versions
>
> 1) 256 entries:
> 42523679 itterations in 300.005423 seconds = 141743/sec
> 2) 16 entries:
> 41774255 itterations in 300.005334 seconds = 139245/sec
So that is around 1.8% in a benchmark.
Not bad, if one considers, that this is an expensive syncronisation primitive
anyway (and thus shouldn't dominate any real workload). At least _much_
better than possible stack underflow :-)
BTW: You forgot to include measurements with the unmodified code
as it is in Linus' tree now. They woule be a nice data point here.
> Will try with a dynamic allocation.
But than you have an additional error path
or have to sleep until memory becomes available.
Maybe try doubling IPCS_MAX_SCAN_ENTRIES - until the performance impact
is in the noise - is simpler. Up to 64 seems acceptable.
Best Regards
Ingo Oeser
-
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]
