From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D88C91E.26D2A5F1@austin.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:42:38 -0500 From: Bill Hartner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: VolanoMark Benchmark results for 2.5.26, 2.5.26 + rmap, 2.5.35,and2.5.35 + 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 Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bill Hartner wrote: > > > I will baseline on 2.4.19 and run both the 3GB and 4GB VoloanoMark test. > > > > I will also test with rmap14a. > > I released rmap14b last night, with an SMP bugfix you'll want to have: > > http://surriel.com/patches/2.4/2.4.19-rmap14b > > > 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. > > Hmmm, with near certainty rmap in 2.4 still has a bunch of SMP > inefficiencies that'll slow you down on an 8-way. If these are > bothering you I'll do a backport of the 2.5 rmap speedups... I have not ran on a UP with memory pressure - could try that. VolanoMark has looooooong run queues - so I will look for a o(1) scheduler patch to lay down and then rmap14b - do you see any problem with rmap14b on top of o(1) ? 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/