Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Jun 2001 07:07:00 +0200 (CEST) | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: 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 (http://www.osdlab.org) 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.
Excellent!
-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/
| |