From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <400CDAC9.40107@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:37:45 +1100 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Memory management in 2.6 References: <400CB3BD.4020601@cyberone.com.au> <1074582020.2246.1.camel@laptop-linux> <200401201519.54619.mhf@linuxmail.org> In-Reply-To: <200401201519.54619.mhf@linuxmail.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Michael Frank Cc: ncunningham@users.sourceforge.net, Linux Memory Management , Andrew Morton List-ID: Michael Frank wrote: >I had already sent a version (ti-tests) dedicated to stress testing to LKML in October. > >Just in case I enclose those again. README inside. > >I ran 2.6 again for the first time since -test9 yesterday to test >swsusp and immeadiatly went to elevator=deadline as aio is unusable >at high io loads which I need to break swsusp in. > >If you do on a 2GHz+ machine: > >$ti stat ub17 ddw 4 5000 > >This gives a load avg of ~40 on a 2.4G P4 with 533MHz FSB > >2.4.23 behaves "proportionate" to load - at these loads mouse is jerky but has best throughput. > >2.6 with deadline is similar but a bit slower and the mouse is very smooth. > >2.6 with aio the mouse is smooth but no io throughput and io is highly intermittent. AFAICS similar to -test9. > >It must be recognized that these tests act in a non-anticipatory manner - this is what they are designed for ;) > Hmm... thats a bit alarming. I'll have to take a look at why that is so, thanks. (2.6 -bk and -mm kernels have some as-iosched changes by the way) I'll also see if they might be useful as an mm regression test. -- 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