From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D88A575.D25CE720@austin.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:10:30 -0500 From: Bill Hartner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: VolanoMark Benchmark results for 2.5.26, 2.5.26 + rmap, 2.5.35,and 2.5.35 + mm1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrew Morton , Bill Hartner , linux-mm@kvack.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Bill Hartner wrote: > > > > > > I ran VolanoMark 2.1.2 under memory pressure to test rmap. > > > --------------- > > > 2.5.26 vs 2.5.26 + rmap patch > > > ----------------------------- > > > It appears as though the page stealing decisions made when using the > > > 2.5.26 rmap patch may not be as good as the baseline for this workload. > > > There was more swap activity and idle time. > > > > Do you have similar results for 2.4 and 2.4-rmap? > > If Bill is going to test this, I'd appreciate it if he could use > rmap14a (or newer, if I've released it by the time he gets around > to testing). > Rik, I will baseline on 2.4.19 and run both the 3GB and 4GB VoloanoMark test. I will also test with rmap14a. I am currently running (a) rawio on scsi devices and (b) direct io on scsi devices for both read and readv on 2.5.35. For this test, I am using an 8-way 700 Mhz with (4) IBM 4Mx controllers and 32 disks. I should be able to get to the 2.4.19 VolanoMark tests by the end of the week. Both rawio and VolanoMark test use the same machine. Bill -- 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/