Re: More 2.4.4 benchmarks

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Wed May 09 2001 - 10:50:42 PDT

  • Next message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: More 2.4.4 benchmarks"

    Valdis.Kletnieksat_private wrote:
    > On Wed, 09 May 2001 00:33:49 PDT, Crispin Cowan said:
    > > For the most part, they show very little degradation due to LSM.  Good.
    > > The curious metric is main memory latency:  it shows considerable degradation,
    > > when this is one metric I would expect to be unaffected by LSM.  I don't have a
    > > decent conjecture of what would cause this.
    > OK.. Speculating on the *weird* causes first. ;)
    Yup, cache pathologies are a likely candidate to cause this.
    > Time to go can-opener the lmbench code and start looking, I guess....
    Or just ignore it for now, and see if the artifact goes away or reverses itself.
    Chasing cache artifacts can be a very expensive hobby :-)
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 09 2001 - 10:52:32 PDT