lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: some 2.4.17 vs. 2.4.17-rmap8 vs. lowmem analysis
From
Date
Ok, ran the same test again this time limiting ram to 32MB to really
work the vm. Unfortunately 2.4.17-rmap8 couldn't handle the vm load and
locked up during a swapin. So obviously there is no real data on it.
here is the data of the plain kernel
http://safemode.homeip.net/low_mem-2.4.17.vmstat
and here are some graphs
http://safemode.homeip.net/lowmem_cpu.png (user/sys)
http://safemode.homeip.net/lowmem_mem.png (swap/free/cache/buf)
http://safemode.homeip.net/lowmem_proc.png (waiting)
http://safemode.homeip.net/lowmem_si.png (swap in)
http://safemode.homeip.net/lowmem_so.png (swap out)


I'm not sure exactly how erradic the kernel gets compared to what it
_should_ be because i dont have one with a different vm to compare it to
but maybe that can be fixed sometime before 18 is released. All in all
i'd say it did pretty damn good for only 32MB of ram and running what
normally consumes an easy 92MB of ram normally. Submitted for any
suggestions....





On Wed, 2001-12-26 at 12:44, safemode wrote:
> I'd just like to say first off that this was a test based on real world
> use, meaning i was doing something i do within the scope of a normal day
> using the computer.
>
> Machine Specs (the usefull ones)
> memory : 754MB (now MiB it seems) usable
> cpu : 850Mhz K7-2 Athlon
> hdd : 92GiB ext3 FS on 100GB (weird hdd GB) WD 7200rpm UDMA4
> ext3 : mounted ordered data mode. sync 5 sec.
> kernels: one is 2.4.17 with the preempt patch. The other is exactly the
> same only with the rmap8 patch added.
>
> Test preconditions.
> Ram filled up with disk cache from running updatedb and then viewing
> multiple large avi files. All normal programs i have up everyday were
> running. This includes the following X apps:
> 6 Eterms
> 3 xterms
> 1 gaim (no message windows open)
> 1 mozilla
> 1 Evolution
> 1 Xawtv
> 1 Freeamp (with playlist window open)
> 2 gprocmeter (1 remote)
> sawfish (with 5 virt. desktops)
> I then make sure swap is empty.
>
> actual test.
> I Begin compiling kernel 2.4.17-preempt tree by make clean and then
> immediately following it with a make bzImage. Then i jump between
> virtual desktops, allowing each to be completely drawn before jumping to
> the next. Then I hit reload on slashdot on mozilla (no pics loaded) and
> then goto freshmeat. Then i goto Evolution and view an email and then
> back a few virtual desktops and start playing an mp3. Then i jump a
> desktop and message myself in gaim. I also rotate windows from the
> foreground to the background a few times. I repeat the whole process
> again until the compile finishes. The exact tree is used for both tests,
> and all the apps are done the same way. Basically it's an interactive
> test that gives no direct data on interactivity unless you see the
> "waiting processes" as a measure of that.
>
>
> and now the data
> horizontal is the same in each test, 0-299 seconds (5 minutes)
> vertical is explained in keys or just the filename.
> http://safemode.homeip.net/2.4.17-rmap8.vmstat
> http://safemode.homeip.net/2.4.17.vmstat
> some graphs based on data.
> http://safemode.homeip.net/2.4.17_bi.png (block writing)
> http://safemode.homeip.net/2.4.17_bo.png (block reading)
> http://safemode.homeip.net/2.4.17_cpu_usage.png (system/user)
> http://safemode.homeip.net/2.4.17_mem_usage.png
> http://safemode.homeip.net/2.4.17_processes.png (waiting proc)
>
> graphs were created using quickplot. rmap8 ended about 7 seconds before
> the plain kernel, hence the drop to 0 in each graph.
>
> initial reactions.
> Many of the graphs are very close to eachother. The two most notably
> different are the memory usage graph and bi (block writing) graph. The
> memory graph seems to show a tendency to cache and free memory at the
> expense of buffer memory in rmap8 when compared to plain 2.4.17. In the
> bi graph, there seems to be a steady increase in writing in the plain
> kernel when compared to the rmap8 kernel, perhaps the reason why there
> is more cache memory being used in rmap8 than the plain one. Finally
> the last graph I can see as showing something a bit different is the
> processes graph which shows how many processes were waiting to be
> executed. This graph seems to show that rmap8 is a bit unfriendly to
> sharing runtime than the plain kernel is. Rather, it seems to be a bit
> more chaotic in how it allows proccess time. Giving a greater deviation
> from the steady 1-2 range than the plain kernel.
>
> if there's a way to get better data on what the effects of the rmap
> patch are, i'd like to know. Perhaps loading the system to above normal
> use is what's needed. As for normal use, i dont think anyone could
> notice a difference.
>
> perhaps if vmstat would give some of the extra data found in
> /proc/meminfo as well. Keeping everything one console screen wide isn't
> that important with me.
>
> Stability wise with rmap8, gaim closed by itself over night. No error
> messages anywhere as far as I can tell and restarting it is fine. I do
> notice that it's reluctant to use swap to a much greater degree than the
> plain kernel was.
>
> -
> 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/
>


-
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 13:18    [W:0.060 / U:1.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site