Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:26:35 +0800 | From | Michael Clark <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.9 page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x20 |
| |
On 10/28/04 16:29, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > On Thursday 28 October 2004 08:31, Michael Clark wrote: > >>BTW - 2.6 is much more responsive than 2.4 while this is all >>going on - i'm just worried about these messages. > > > Which one was faster, and by how much?
Both tests compiling 2.6.9 tree with make -j192 bzImage modules (.config posted earlier) from clean source after a reboot. 2CPUs, 2GB RAM, 2GB swap
2.4.27 real 15m38.504s user 21m5.720s sys 3m28.990s peaked at about 1.7GB swap usage
2.6.9 real 14m50.360s user 21m9.008s sys 2m40.580s peaked at 2.0GB swap usage - top said 0K swap free and it survived ;)
2.6.9 was 5% faster (although subjectively almost a magnitude more responsive ie. sshing into the box in the middle of this took about a minute with 2.4.27 and only about 10 or so seconds with 2.6.9, although i didn't time this).
Seems 2.6's more proactive swapping helps a bit ie. swap more of the right stuff so as to swap less overall as 2.6 went about 20% deeper into swap.
~mc - 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/
| |