From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [RFC] buddy allocator without bitmap [2/4] From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <412EC71B.4070308@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <412DD1AA.8080408@jp.fujitsu.com> <1093535402.2984.11.camel@nighthawk> <412E6CC3.8060908@jp.fujitsu.com> <20040826171840.4a61e80d.akpm@osdl.org> <412E8009.3080508@jp.fujitsu.com> <412EBD22.2090508@jp.fujitsu.com> <1093583072.2984.463.camel@nighthawk> <412EC71B.4070308@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1093584691.2984.473.camel@nighthawk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:31:31 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm , lhms , William Lee Irwin III List-ID: On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 22:31, Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA wrote: > I cannot find suitable one, so I test in microbenchmark calling mmap() > and munmap(). As you say, real-world workload test is more suitable to > measure kernel's performance. Sorry, I thought you were just running a loop with atomic operations inside of it, not actually exercising the kernel itself. The test you described in your mail to Andrew sounds much more useful than what I thought it was. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org