On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:38:16 -0400 Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Hmm, after a opcontrol --reset i see the same issue now. Don't know what's
> > wrong, but it must be something different from the .20 perfctr allocation
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Hmm, after a opcontrol --reset i see the same issue now. Don't know what's
> wrong, but it must be something different from the .20 perfctr allocation
> problem.
>
> It looks like the daemon doesn't get any data from the kernel
I fina
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 04:45:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:22:05 +0200
> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > 2.6.21:
> > >
> > > akpm2:/home/akpm# opreport -l /boot/vmlinux-$(uname -r) | head -50
> > > opreport error: No sample file found: try running opcontr
On Sat, 5 May 2007 01:22:05 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2.6.21:
> >
> > akpm2:/home/akpm# opreport -l /boot/vmlinux-$(uname -r) | head -50
> > opreport error: No sample file found: try running opcontrol --dump
> > or specify a session containing sample files
>
> For me it wor
On Friday 04 May 2007 23:33:47 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007 13:42:12 -0700
>
> 2.6.20:
>
> akpm2:/home/akpm> opcontrol --start-daemon
> /usr/bin/opcontrol: line 1098: /dev/oprofile/0/enabled: No such file or
> directory
> /usr/bin/opcontrol: line 1098: /dev/oprofile/0/event: No suc
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I'd investigate further, but someone has gone and broken oprofile.
>
Did you just notice that? Apparently it's been broken since 2.6.21-final.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More ma
On Fri, 4 May 2007 14:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > So the patch took the average system time from 4.42 seconds up to 4.582
> > seconds. Nice slowdown!
>
> All of that from a memset and a list head init on a cache
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> So the patch took the average system time from 4.42 seconds up to 4.582
> seconds. Nice slowdown!
All of that from a memset and a list head init on a cacheline we already
use?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" i
On Fri, 4 May 2007 13:42:12 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd investigate further, but someone has gone and broken oprofile.
Damn, we went and merged that bustage?
2.6.20:
akpm2:/home/akpm> opcontrol --start-daemon
/usr/bin/opcontrol: line 1098: /dev/oprofile/0/enabled: No s
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
> this around?).
>
> TCP S
On Thu, 3 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:08:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> > strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> > constructor has definitely no negative impact
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:08:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
> this around?).
Cache effects are not so eas
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The change looks nice, but I'd microbenchmark it with a
> write-to-ext2-on-ramdisk
> or something like that.
Hmmm... How does one benchmark buffer head performance? Guess just by
copying files? Not sure if the following will cut it.
Two tests. First c
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> > strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> > constructor has definitely no
On Thu, 3 May 2007 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
> strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
> constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
> this around?).
>
> TCP
Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a
strong case for a performance improvement but removing the
constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep
this around?).
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to localhost (127.0.0.1)
port 0 AF_INET
Recv S
17 matches
Mail list logo
