lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4
> > 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
>
> ???

what's the question? you just reformatted my results.

> If so, then 2.4.12 won on user, system and elapsed.

of course: that's the point. but elapsed is where the big difference is,
and that's what's interesting, since it reflects less dead time due to
smarter/less swapping.

> What's with the CPU
> percentage? Are you on a dual system?

yes, of course: the bp6 is a dual, with cel/366's in this case.
I don't think SMPness is relevant here.

> > 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.

no, my statement is correct; I merely didn't give stats for Rik's VM.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.062 / U:3.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site