[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:0.084 / U:24.136 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site