Re: bad lmbench numbers for mmap

V Ganesh (ganesh@vxindia.veritas.com)
Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:38:41 +0530 (IST)

> From: David Miller <davem@twiddle.net>
>
> Wait a second, lat_mmap touches a large part of the set of pages in
> the mmap'd area. If the Solaris machine had half as much memory, and
> lat_mmap used a smaller upper limit on the size of the mmap'd area,
> then the difference in performance makes sense.

ouch. you're right of course. I was misled by the fact that the table
just said "mmap latency". so it's not so horrible as I thought, but it's
still pretty bad. I just posted the raw numbers and we are roughly
twice as slow as solaris.

ganesh

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/