From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:24:27 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [RFC] how do we move the VM forward? (was Re: [RFC] cleanup ofuse-once) Message-ID: <89480000.1116624266@flay> In-Reply-To: <20050520181606.GB6002@MAIL.13thfloor.at> References: <42771904.7020404@yahoo.com.au> <42781AC5.1000201@yahoo.com.au> <20050520181606.GB6002@MAIL.13thfloor.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Herbert Poetzl , David Lang Cc: Nick Piggin , Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --On Friday, May 20, 2005 20:16:06 +0200 Herbert Poetzl wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:51:43PM -0700, David Lang wrote: >> On Wed, 4 May 2005, Nick Piggin wrote: >> >> > >> > Also having a box or two for running regression and stress >> > testing is a must. I can do a bit here, but unfortunately >> > "kernel compiles until it hurts" is probably not the best >> > workload to target. > > if there are some tests or output (kernel logs, etc) > or proc info or vmstat or whatever, which doesn't take > 100% cpu time, I'm able and willing to test it on different > workloads (including compiling the kernel until it hurts ;) I did take that patch and run a bunch of tests on it across a few different architectures. everything worked fine, no perf differnences either way ... but then I may not have actually put it under memory pressure, so it might not be ideal testing ;-) M. -- 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