Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:35:52 -0500 (EST) | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: Good MM benchmarks utilities? |
| |
Steve Bergman writes:
> I've been doing some benchmarking of the 2.2pre kernels and various > patches in development. I am looking for memory management benchmark > utilities. Something like Bonnie for vm subsystem benchmarking. > I'm concerned about the comprehensiveness of my own simple tests. > What I'm finding is that while 2.2 is outperforming 2.0.36 in some > situations, it is falling far behind in others. Particularly the very > low memory case (6M with X running) 2.0.36 performs far better (Even > though the overall 'available memory' as reported by top is actually > slightly *greater* for 2.2. Andrea Arcangeli's recent patches have > improved things a great deal but I still haven't found anything to > beat 2.0.36 in very low memory. It would help to have a suite that > gives a more comprehensive view of mm performance. > > Also, no matter how good the suite is, it will only tell me about the > performance of my particular hardware layout. The more people who > test and submit results, the better 2.2/2.3 mm will be.
If gcc could be IO-bound, you'd have a great benchmark. You could get a 450 MHZ Xeon or 666 MHz Alpha with old IDE drives, or slow down your IO in software to adjust for a normal CPU.
There might be a place in the block device code where you could add a nice delay. You could get the NFS swap patches and use a PPP link over a 14.4 modem. I suspect that would make gcc highly IO-bound.
If you had the kernel log user IO operations and page faults, you could have a benchmark play back gcc IO behavior without all the normal CPU usage.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |