[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:0.071 / U:0.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site