Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.18pre3-ac1 | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | 13 Jan 2002 22:47:56 -0700 |
| |
Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> writes:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Adam Kropelin wrote: > > > From: "Alan Cox" <alan@redhat.com> > > > > > People keep bugging me about the -ac tree stuff so this is whats in my > > > current internal diff with the ll patch and the ide changes excluded. > > > For the sake of completeness I ran my large inbound FTP transfer test > > (details in the "Writeout in recent kernels..." thread) on this > > release. Performance and observed writeout behavior was essentially > > the same as for 2.4.17, both stock and with -rmap11a. Transfer time > > was 6:56 and writeout was uneven. 2.4.13-ac7 is still the winner by a > > significant margin. > > I'm looking into this bug, I just finished the first large > dbench test set on 2.4.17-rmap11b with 512 MB RAM, tomorrow > I'll run them with 128 and 32 MB of RAM. > > Luckily you have already shown the other recent kernels to > have the same performance, so I only have to do half a day > of testing. I'll try to track down this bug and get it fixed.
Rik while you are looking at your reverse mapping code, I would like to call to your attention the at least trippling of times for fork. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason your rmap vm handles things like gcc -j better than the stock kernel is simply the reduced number of processes, due to slower forking.
Just my 2 cents so we don't forget the caveats of the reverse map approach.
Eric - 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/
| |