Re: [Bug 890] New: performance regression compared to 2.4.20 under

• Next message: Thomas Schlichter: "Re: 2.5.74-mm3 - apm_save_cpus() Macro still bombs out"
• Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: per_cpu fixes"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > As can be seen, the differences are quite significant, about three seconds on
> > average, which I believe may be related to the increased swapping time I have
> > encountered.
>
> The 2.4 VM's virtual scan has the effect of swapping out one process at a
> time. 2.5's physical(ish) scan doesn't have that side-effect.
>
> It means that in 2.4, the lucky processes can make decent progress. In
> 2.5, everyone makes equal progress and everyone thrashes everyone else to
> bits.

        I have precisely the same problem on my p166-16M RAM.
        Disk/controller are fast, and dma is on.

        2.4 runs much much faster. Remote shell logins are more than twice as fast.

        Needless to say it runs 2.4 ;-)

-- 
Cheers, Samium Gromoff
regards, Samium Gromoff
-
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/

• Next message: Thomas Schlichter: "Re: 2.5.74-mm3 - apm_save_cpus() Macro still bombs out"
• Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: per_cpu fixes"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 22:00:34 EST