From: Hubertus F. <fr...@wa...> - 2002-01-16 15:30:07
|
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:20:38PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 09:08:45PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > My patch is definitively WIP - right now I again broke the -ENOMEM and > > -EFAULT handling. > > I am aware of that, but the lse-tech posting made it sound as if things are > great now since the SMP numbers improved. Please folks, remember that UP > numbers are important too. > > -ben > -- > Fish. Ben, yes you are right, the lse-posting in a second reading is misleading. As reported previously http://lse.sourceforge.net/pipe/pipe-report UP numbers see degradations for LM-Bench, other benchmarks are OK. This is not solved either by an integration of zero-copy with large pipes. We have however shown that the for SMP systems adding larger pipes to zero-copy pipes makes sense and for UP and 1-way sticking with a 1-page pipe does not degradate Manfred's patch. It hence boils down to a proper parameterization of the pipe dependent on the configuration. -- Hubertus |