Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:38:41 +0530 (IST) | From | V Ganesh <> | Subject | Re: bad lmbench numbers for mmap |
| |
> 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/
| |