[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: bad lmbench numbers for mmap
       Date: 	Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:34:18 +0530 (IST)
    From: V Ganesh <>

    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.

    David S. Miller

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.018 / U:6.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site