From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Ed Tomlinson Subject: Re: 2.5.42-mm2 on small systems Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 18:43:10 -0400 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200210161843.10095.tomlins@cam.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Bill Davidsen Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On October 16, 2002 04:55 pm, Bill Davidsen wrote: > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > > hm. Works for me. The default setting are waaay too boring, so > > I used ./resp -m2 -M5 -w5 > This was intended to be a simple test of how the kernel feels, and it is > that, but some kernels I've tried get to one test or another and shit the > bed every time. It's not a stress test! How can I get my numbers if the > kernel keeps hanging solid? ;-) You add sufficient tracing so you can find were it hangs... And report it so it can get fixed. IMHO, while not a stress test, it can put stress on the kernel - it needs to to test the interactive response. Still trying to figure out what is happening on my 64m 486. Thanks for the interesting benchmark. Ed -- 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/