On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 12:17:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, David Mosberger wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:11:26 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > Linus> I don't know how to make the benchmark look repeatable an
Mailing List
Subject: RE: [Lmbench-users] Re: pipe performance regression on ia64
>Maybe lmbench could add a feature that bw_pipe will fork CPU number of
>children to measure the average throughput.
>
>This will give a much reasonable result when running bw_pipe on a SMP
>Box, at l
>Maybe lmbench could add a feature that bw_pipe will fork CPU
>number of children to measure the average throughput.
>
>This will give a much reasonable result when running bw_pipe
>on a SMP Box, at least for Linux.
bw_pipe (along with most/all of the lmbench tools already has
a "-P" argument t
; Kernel Mailing
List
> Subject: Re: [Lmbench-users] Re: pipe performance regression on ia64
>
> I'm very unthrilled with the idea of adding stuff to the release
benchmark
> which is OS specific. That said, there is nothing to say that you
can't
> grab the benchmark and
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> I'm very unthrilled with the idea of adding stuff to the release benchmark
> which is OS specific. That said, there is nothing to say that you can't
> grab the benchmark and tweak your own test case in there to prove or
> disprove your theory.
Hmm..
It would be good if you copied me directly since I don't read the kernel
list anymore (I'd love to but don't have the bandwidth) and I rarely read
the lmbench list. But only if you want to drag me into it, of course.
Carl and I both work on LMbench but not very actively. I had really
hoped that
6 matches
Mail list logo
