Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:44:52 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: VM: 2.4.10 vs. 2.4.10-ac2 and qsort() |
| |
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I'm not sure either, since qsort doesn't really have much > > locality of reference but just walks all over the place. > > qsort can be made to perform reasonably well providing you try to cache > colour the objects you sort and try to use prefetches a bit.
That won't quite work when the qsort in question is 150% the size of your RAM ;)
> > One thing which could make 2.4.10 faster for this single case > > is the fact that it doesn't keep any page aging info, so IO > > clustering won't be confused by the process accessing its > > pages ;) > > I don't think that is too unusual a case. If the smarter vm is making > poorer I/O clustering decisions it wants investigating
Absolutely, this is something we really want to know ...
I guess I'll play with Lorenzo's program a bit to see how the system behaves and how it can be improved.
regards,
Rik -- IA64: a worthy successor to i860.
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |