On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
> [...]
> > run this version I'd like to see the result. I believe I had to use the
> > "-l" patch option to ignore blank mismatches to get this to work, and I've
> > cleaned up another mailing funny as well.
>
> Hi Bill,
> here the results agains 2.5.41-mm2C (2.5.41-mm2 + Con patch "vmscan.c")
>
> Starting 1 CPU run with 250 MB RAM, minimum 5 data points at 20 sec intervals
>
> _____________ delay ms. ____________
> Test low high median average S.D. ratio
> noload 113.648 114.508 113.707 113.861 0.000 1.000
> smallwrite 116.054 180.420 117.924 130.525 0.028 1.146
> largewrite 114.019 179.770 120.451 134.021 0.028 1.177
> cpuload 106.590 162.893 107.075 118.080 0.025 1.037
> spawnload 106.574 164.898 107.490 118.671 0.026 1.042
> 8ctx-mem 7767.843 16917.625 8994.265 10906.788 3.844 95.790
> 2ctx-mem 6515.450 18273.101 10344.575 11217.755 4.822 98.521
>
> 8ctx-mem and 2ctx-mem show "bad" performance.
> Do you think is it possible to apply the patch on the top of 2.5.42-mm2 ?
I haven't tried it yet, but I'm interested in your result, since my
2.5.41-mm2v result was actually better then plain -mm2. I am just building
some new test stuff on an SMP machine so I can compare uni and SMP
performance under load, and I'll look at 2.5.42 tonight or tomorrow.
My reference machine was a 96MB machine, if you're really curious about
this you could boot with mem=96m (or 128m) and rerun the test. In any case
I have the kids tonight, if I get some time I'll try it, otherwise
tomorrow.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- 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 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:47 EST