From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 19:55:01 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: objrmap and vmtruncate Message-Id: <20030405195501.028ca5d8.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <72740000.1049599406@[10.10.2.4]> References: <20030404163154.77f19d9e.akpm@digeo.com> <12880000.1049508832@flay> <20030405024414.GP16293@dualathlon.random> <20030404192401.03292293.akpm@digeo.com> <20030405040614.66511e1e.akpm@digeo.com> <72740000.1049599406@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: andrea@suse.de, mingo@elte.hu, hugh@veritas.com, dmccr@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: > > > The first test has 100 tasks, each of which has 100 vma's. The 100 processes > > modify their 100 vma's in a linear walk. Total working set is 240MB > > (slightly more than is available). > > > > ./rmap-test -l -i 10 -n 100 -s 600 -t 100 foo > > > > 2.5.66-mm4: > > 15.76s user 86.91s system 33% cpu 5:05.07 total > > 2.5.66-mm4+objrmap: > > 23.07s user 1143.26s system 87% cpu 22:09.81 total > > 2.4.21-pre5aa2: > > 14.91s user 75.30s system 24% cpu 6:15.84 total > > Isn't the intent to use sys_remap_file_pages for these sort of workloads > anyway? In which case partial objrmap = rmap for these tests, so we're > still OK? > remap_file_pages() would work OK for this, yes. Bit sad that an application which runs OK on 2.4 would need recoding to work acceptably under 2.5 though. -- 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