Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:29:26 -0700 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4 |
| |
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 01:48:05PM -0400, 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 >
Is this: > 2.2.19: 584.462user 57.492system 385.112elapsed 166.5%CPU
> 2.4.12: 582.318user 40.535system 337.093elapsed 184.5%CPU
???
If so, then 2.4.12 won on user, system and elapsed. What's with the CPU percentage? Are you on a dual system?
> 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
No, that's Andrea's VM (since 2.4.10pre11). Rik's is in 2.4.xx-ac.
Mike - 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/
|  |