From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 24 11:57:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.22.195.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25BAE37B400 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from andrewm by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #2) id 16f4m8-0001YT-00 (Debian); Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:57:36 +0000 To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Test patch for msync/object-flushing performance (for stable) Newsgroups: chiark.mail.freebsd.hackers In-Reply-To: <20020224114508.P15264-100000@patrocles.silby.com> References: <15481.61.57511.222531@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Organization: Antique and shadowy Khem Cc: Message-Id: From: Andrew Mobbs Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:57:36 +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <20020224114508.P15264-100000@patrocles.silby.com> you write: > >On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Andrew Mobbs wrote: > >> vm.msync_flush_flags >> | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | >> -------+-------+-------+-------+-------| >> write | 519 | 517 | 1632 | 519 | >> sync | 2227 | 176 | 848 | 177 | > ^^^ >I don't get that one; any idea why bit 1 on for the first test performs so >differently from the other tests? Were these tests all run sequentially? >Maybe memory is becoming more fragmented as time goes on, causing that >optimization to not be able to work properly. I put that one down to other activity on the system, given the four other repeats with bit 1 set didn't show that. I tried to leave it as quiet as possible, but didn't bother disabling any cron jobs. Which is why I repeated each test 5 times. The test order was 0,1,2,3,0,1,2,3 &c. run sequentially. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message