Re: [Lse-tech] Re: VolanoMark Benchmark results for 2.5.26, 2.5.26+ rmap, 2.5.35 + mm1, and 2.5.38 + mm3

[Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>]

Bill Hartner wrote:
> 
> Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > Bill Hartner wrote:
> > > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > >>Bill Hartner wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>...
> > >>>2.5.35       44693  86.1 1.45        1,982,236 KB  5,393,152 KB  7,375,388 KB
> > >>>2.5.35mm1    39679  99.6 1.50       *2,720,600 KB *6,154,512 KB *8,875,112 KB
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>2.5.35 was fairly wretched from the swapout point of view.
> > >>Would be interesting to retest on 2.5.38-mm/2.5.39 sometime.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Here are VolanoMark results for 2.5.38 and 2.5.38-mm3 for both
> > > 3GB (memory pressure) and 4GB.  I will repeat for 2.5.40 mm1 or
> > > what ever is the latest and greatest on Friday.
> >
> > Could you possibly include profiling data as well?  oprofile would be
> > preferred, but readprofile would be fine if you can get it.  We can
> > guess what is causing the degredation, but profiles will offer some
> > hard proof.
> 
> I will get 2.5.40 mm1 results and then get a profile before and after the
> point that we start swapping.
> 
> I think that the ips driver may be bouncing here - so I would like to
> resolve that 1st - could change results - possibly quite a bit.
> 

Profiles will tell.

Bill, I'd recommend that you simply *always* generate a kernel profile.
Just make it a part of the routine.  They tell us so much.

It's a matter of replacing

	test

with

	readprofile -r
	test
	readprofile -v -m /boot/System.map | sort -n +2
--
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/