Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:58:26 -0700 | From | David Miller <> | Subject | Re: bad lmbench numbers for mmap |
| |
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:34:18 +0530 (IST) From: V Ganesh <ganesh@vxindia.veritas.com>
I tried lmbench 1.9 on an ultra5 (270 MHz, 128 MB RAM) running linux 2.2.2 and compared with an identical machine running solaris 2.6(except it had 64M). linux blew solaris away in most of the benchmarks except mmap latency.
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.
If you have the opportunity, I'd rerun the tests with identical memory configurations on both systems.
Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com
- 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/
| |