[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: VM Report was:Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
> > More importantly, a *repeatable* set of tests is what is needed to
> > test the VM and get consistent results from run to run, so you can see
> > how your changes are impacting performance. The kernel compile
> > doesn't really have any one process grow to a large fraction of
> > memory, so dropping in a compile which *does* is a good thing.
> I agree with you.
> Mike, I'm sure you have noticed that stock kernel gives much better
> results than mine or Jonathan's patch.

I noticed that Jonathan brought back waiting.. that (among others)
made me veeeeery interested.

> Now the stock kernel gives us crappy interactivity compared to my patch.
> (Note: my patch still does not gives me the interactivity I want under
> high VM loads, but I hope to get there soon).

(And that's why) Among other things (yes, I do love throughput) I've
poked at the interactivity problem. I can't improve it anymore without
doing some strategic waiting :( I used to be able to help it a little
by doing a careful roll-up in scrub size as load builds.. trying to
smooth the transition from latency oriented to hammer down throughput.

> BTW, we are talking with the OSDL ( guys about a
> possibility to setup a test system which would run a different variety of
> benchmarks to give us results of different kinds of workloads. If that
> ever happens, we'll probably get rid of most of this testing problems.



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 12:55    [W:0.141 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site