Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:50:32 +0200 | From | Lorenzo Allegrucci <> | Subject | Re: 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.
-- Lorenzo - 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/
|  |