Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:06:38 -0400 | From | Patrick McFarland <> | Subject | [: Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4] |
| |
Heh, well 2.2 actually could get away with it. I think I remember seeing the system size (reported by make bzimage) to me 2 megs vs 2.4's 4 megs. Or maybe I'm just imagining things.
On 13-Oct-2001, Mark Hahn wrote: > > Now, the great kernel hacker, ac, said that 2.2 is better at vm in low > > memory situations than 2.4 is. Why is this? Why hasnt someone fixed the 2.4 > > code? > > not to slight TGKH AC, but he's also the 2.2 maintainer; perhaps there's > some paternal protectiveness there ;) > > my test for VM is to compile a kernel on my crappy old BP6 with mem=64m; > I use a dedicated partition with a fresh ext2, unpack the same source tree, > make -j2 7 times, drop 1 outlier, and average: > > 2.2.19: 584.462user 57.492system 385.112elapsed 166.5%CPU > 2.4.12: 582.318user 40.535system 337.093elapsed 184.5%CPU > > notice that elapsed is noticably faster even than the 1+17 second > benefit to user and system times. Rik's VM seems to be slightly > slower on this test. with 128M, there's much less diference for > any of the versions (and I don't have the patience for <64M.) > > regards, mark hahn. > > - > 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/ >
-- Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || unknown@panax.com [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |