From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:50:44 +0100 From: Roger Luethi Subject: Re: VM benchmarks Message-ID: <20040202165044.GA8156@k3.hellgate.ch> References: <401D8D64.8010605@cyberone.com.au> <20040201160818.1499be18.akpm@osdl.org> <401D95C2.3080208@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <401D95C2.3080208@cyberone.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:11:46 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > efax is a compilation as well. I would be up for trying it, but it The main advantage of efax over kbuild is that it is completely immune to unfairness. And it used to have a low variance (in 2.4). Other than that, access patterns are similar enough to make me suspect that gcc loads are all quite similar. > needs quite a lot of GUI dev libraries installed to compile it. > > I'll get onto it sometime I suppose, but for now I'll try to leave > my test box unchanged. You can actually do something like which shouldn't require the dependencies on the test box: /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/3.2.3/cc1plus -fpreprocessed efaxi586.ii \ -quiet -O2 -Wall -fexceptions -frtti -fsigned-char -fno-check-new -o main.s All you need is the preprocessed code. I can test a couple of patches I you care, though. Which ones? 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