From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 23 19:48:52 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAE9216A420; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:48:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jasone@freebsd.org) Received: from lh.synack.net (lh.synack.net [204.152.188.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD3543D5E; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:48:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jasone@freebsd.org) Received: by lh.synack.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id E83CA5E48ED; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.168.203] (moscow-cuda-gen2-68-64-60-20.losaca.adelphia.net [68.64.60.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lh.synack.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577A85E48B4; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:48:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <43ABCBCF.8060500@freebsd.org> References: <43ABCBCF.8060500@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jason Evans Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:48:47 -0800 To: David Xu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on lh.synack.net X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.0.4 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New malloc ready, take 42 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:48:52 -0000 On Dec 23, 2005, at 2:05 AM, David Xu wrote: > > If I have linked " aj>>>>>>>" to /etc/malloc.conf for phkmalloc, the > super-smack get better result, on my Pentium-D 2.8Ghz machine, > before this set, the select-key.smack can only reach 19500 q_per_s, > after the set, it can reach 20791.33 q_per_s ! Was this a CURRENT system? If so, did you use the 'aj' flags when running the first test? By default, CURRENT has 'AJ' set, which means that junk filling is on unless you turn it off. Junk filling would cause approximately the performance difference you measured. Thanks, Jason