From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:11:59 +0100 From: Roger Luethi Subject: Re: Memory management in 2.6 Message-ID: <20040120131159.GA5572@k3.hellgate.ch> References: <400CB3BD.4020601@cyberone.com.au> <20040119205855.37524811.akpm@osdl.org> <400CB730.4010201@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <400CB730.4010201@cyberone.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:05:52 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > >Nick Piggin wrote: > > > >>loads should be runnable on about 64MB, preferably give decently > >>repeatable results in under an hour. > > > >In under three minutes, IMO. > > That would be nice, but sometimes hard, with multiple processes > and fairly heavy swapping load. efax exhibits a much higher run time variance in 2.6 than in 2.4, and that's only one process. The reason we can't say anything conclusive after three minutes is not a lack of short benchmarks, but the fact that most benchmarks need to be repeated a dozen times to get reliable numbers. > would be preferable to "do something for 2 minutes and measure how > far we got", but kbuild doesn't lend itself particularly well to > that. What you can do for kbuild is to build only part of it. I used something like: rm arch/*/*/*.o arch/i386/boot/bzImage time make -j24 Roger -- 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