Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 18 May 2001 08:06:37 +0200 (CEST) | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10 |
| |
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ? > > > > Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up, > > but it swaps too heavily. It's a little too conservative about > > releasing cache now imho. (keeping about double what it should be > > with this load.. easily [thump] tweaked;) > > "about double what it should be" > > That's an interesting statement, unless you have some > arguments to define exactly how much cache the system > should keep.
Do you think there's 60-80mb of good cachable data? ;-) The "double" is based upon many hundreds of test runs. I "know" that performance is best with this load when the cache stays around 25-35Mb. I know this because I've done enough bend adjusting to get throughput to within one minute of single task times to have absolutely no doubt. I can get it to 30 seconds with much obscene tweaking, and have done it with zero additional overhead for make -j 30 ten times in a row. (that kernel was.. plain weird. perfect synchronization.. voodoo!)
> Or are you just comparing with 2.2 and you'd rather > have 2.2 performance? ;)
Nope. I've bent this vm up a little and build kernels that kicked the snot out of the previous record holder (classzone). I know for a fact that it can kick major butt.. why I fiddle with it when it doesn't.
-Mike
- 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/
|  |