On 02/23/2011 09:28 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
I had forgotten about<1M mem, so actually the slot configuration was:0:<1M 1: 1M - 3.5G 2: 4G+ I stacked the deck in favor of the static array (0: 4G+, 1: 1M-3.5G, 2: <1M), and got these kernbench results: base (stdev) reorder (stdev) wbtree (stdev) --------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+ Elapsed | 42.809 (0.19) | 42.160 (0.22) | 42.305 (0.23) | User | 115.709 (0.22) | 114.358 (0.40) | 114.720 (0.31) | System | 41.605 (0.14) | 40.741 (0.22) | 40.924 (0.20) | %cpu | 366.9 (1.45) | 367.4 (1.17) | 367.6 (1.51) | context | 7272.3 (68.6) | 7248.1 (89.7) | 7249.5 (97.8) | sleeps | 14826.2 (110.6) | 14780.7 (86.9) | 14798.5 (63.0) | So, wbtree is only slightly behind reordering, and the standard deviation suggests the runs are mostly within the noise of each other. Thanks,
Doesn't this indicate we should use reordering, instead of a new data structure?
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
