Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:48:05 -0400 (EDT) | From | Mark Hahn <> | Subject | Re: 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 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/
|  |