From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
   Date: 	Wed, 02 Jun 1999 00:44:07 -0600

   Has anyone done this?  If this is an area where we need some work, I'll 
   add the appropriate test to lmbench.

ummm...

? ls -l | wc -l
  10001
? time ls -l >/dev/null 
1.20user 0.22system 0:01.42elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (99major+294minor)pagefaults 0swaps
? time ls -l 0000 >/dev/null
0.01user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 76%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (98major+27minor)pagefaults 0swaps
? time ls -l 5000 >/dev/null
0.01user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 76%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (98major+27minor)pagefaults 0swaps
? time ls -l 9999 >/dev/null
0.01user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 76%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (98major+27minor)pagefaults 0swaps
? 

Not entirely scientific, but the point is that I don't think we have a
performance problem here...  I still think such a test in lmbench is
very useful.

Maybe he was talking about 2.0.x, we really sucked in this case there,
without the new dcache...

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/