Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:21:09 -0200 | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/9] clockpro-clockpro.patch |
| |
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:37:34AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 20:40 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > > > > Peter, > > > > I tried your "scan-shared.c" proggy which loops over 140M of a file > > using mmap (on a 128MB box). The number of loops was configured to "5". > > > > The amount of major/minor pagefaults was exactly the same between > > vanilla and clockpro, isnt the clockpro algorithm supposed to be > > superior than LRU in such "sequential scan of MEMSIZE+1" cases? > > yes it should, hmm, have to look at that then. > > What should happen is that nr_cold_target should drop to the bare > minimum, which effectivly pins all hot pages and only rotates the few > cold pages.
I screwed up the tests. Here are the real numbers.
Test: scan 140MB file sequentially, 5 times. Env: 128Mb machine
CLOCK-Pro: 0:49:98elapsed 18%CPU 7358maj+95308min
vanilla: 1:28.05elapsed 11%CPU 12950maj+166374min
Kicking some large arses!
- 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/
| |