[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4
    > 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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.021 / U:17.536 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site