> Now, the great kernel hacker, ac, said that 2.2 is better at vm in low
> memory situations than 2.4 is. Why is this? Why hasnt someone fixed the 2.4
> code?
not to slight TGKH AC, but he's also the 2.2 maintainer; perhaps there's
some paternal protectiveness there ;)
my test for VM is to compile a kernel on my crappy old BP6 with mem=64m;
I use a dedicated partition with a fresh ext2, unpack the same source tree,
make -j2 7 times, drop 1 outlier, and average:
2.2.19: 584.462user 57.492system 385.112elapsed 166.5%CPU
2.4.12: 582.318user 40.535system 337.093elapsed 184.5%CPU
notice that elapsed is noticably faster even than the 1+17 second
benefit to user and system times. Rik's VM seems to be slightly
slower on this test. with 128M, there's much less diference for
any of the versions (and I don't have the patience for <64M.)
regards, mark hahn.
-
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 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:50 EST