From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Stoffel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15136.62579.588726.954053@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:51:15 -0400 Subject: Re: VM Report was:Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Tobias Ringstrom Cc: Mike Galbraith , Jonathan Morton , Shane Nay , Marcelo Tosatti , "Dr S.M. Huen" , Sean Hunter , Xavier Bestel , lkml , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Ringstrom writes: Tobias> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage) >> while testing some other stuff today. Tobias> Could you please explain what is good about this test? I Tobias> understand that it will stress the VM, but will it do so in a Tobias> realistic and relevant way? I agree, this isn't really a good test case. I'd rather see what happens when you fire up a gimp session to edit an image which is *almost* the size of RAM, or even just 50% the size of ram. Then how does that affect your other processes that are running at the same time? This testing could even be automated with the script-foo stuff to get consistent results across runs, which is the prime requirement of any sort of testing. On another issue, in swap.c we have two defines for buffer_mem and page_cache, but the first maxes out at 60%, while the cache maxes out at 75%. Shouldn't they both be lower numbers? Or at least equally sized? I've set my page_cache maximum to be 60, I'll be trying to test it over the weekend, but good weather will keep me outside doing other stuff... Thanks, John John Stoffel - Senior Unix Systems Administrator - Lucent Technologies stoffel@lucent.com - http://www.lucent.com - 978-952-7548 -- 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/