Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:55:29 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, terry@freebsd.org, rwatson@freebsd.org, jlemon@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Mbuf Allocator (some graphs) Message-ID: <20010615185529.D68883@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <20010615194459.A1549@technokratis.com> References: <20010615185421.A1179@technokratis.com> <20010615183255.C68883@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20010615194459.A1549@technokratis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:32:55PM -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:54:21PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote: > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > Here are some performance results. Keep in mind that we're still under > > > Giant. > > > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bmilekic/code/mb_alloc/results.html > > > > Just for comparision, 6-way results are at: > > > > http://www.flugsvamp.com/~jlemon/fbsd/netpipe/ > > Are you sure those aren't inverted? (i.e. swap(present, mb_alloc)?) Yup, I'm sure. The 'local' tests were done last night, the 'stream' tests were done today with the same pair of kernels. > In any case, the mb_alloc code you used still has the malloc() and > free() calls during cluster allocation and freeing and still, it looks to > me as very comparable nonetheless. The results look good to me; the only thing that really stands out is the signature graph for stream tests; that odd curve at the start of the run. However, if I'm interpreting it correctly, it shows better performance in the mb_alloc case. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010615185529.D68883>