On Wed, 9 May 2001, Crispin Cowan wrote: > 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 :-) Just ignoring it will not *necessarily* make it go away, but it may be a temporary manifestation. Let's hope the coders don't "ignore it" but keep it in mind with future patches/code. > > Crispin > > -- > Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. > Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com J. Melvin Jones / |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 09 2001 - 11:15:43 PDT