[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: VM: 2.4.10 vs. 2.4.10-ac2 and qsort()
At 16.23 01/10/01 -0300, you wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
>> Disclaimer:
>> I don't know if this "benchmark" is meaningful or not, but anyhow..
>I'm not sure either, since qsort doesn't really have much
>locality of reference but just walks all over the place.

Yes, it was exactly my goal :)

>This is direct contrast with the basic assumption on which
>VM and CPU caches are built ;)

Indeed, it put strain the VM by a pseudo random-sequential access pattern.

>I wonder how eg. merge sort would perform ...

It would perform better, but merge sort doesn't trash the system :)
I wanted to test the system in trashing conditions.
Just curious.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.068 / U:4.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site