At 16.23 01/10/01 -0300, you wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
>
>> Disclaimer:
>> I don't know if this "benchmark" is meaningful or not, but anyhow..
>
>I'm not sure either, since qsort doesn't really have much
>locality of reference but just walks all over the place.
Yes, it was exactly my goal :)
>This is direct contrast with the basic assumption on which
>VM and CPU caches are built ;)
Indeed, it put strain the VM by a pseudo random-sequential access pattern.
>I wonder how eg. merge sort would perform ...
It would perform better, but merge sort doesn't trash the system :)
I wanted to test the system in trashing conditions.
Just curious.
-- Lorenzo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 21:00:16 EST