From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:34:33 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Test5 performance comparison In-Reply-To: <3981D643.5C2EC40A@sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan wrote: > In short, test5 looks good, the best ever > in my experience. In detail: > -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- > -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- > Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU > > TEST5 256 3618 99.2 11135 16.0 5981 10.8 3005 88.8 18268 17.8 185.4 2.9 > TEST4 256 3630 99.5 9915 14.7 6013 11.3 2894 86.0 18502 19.1 181.4 3.1 This difference is due to the fact that kswapd in -test5 is woken up on time (when all zones have zone->zone_wake_kswapd set), whereas the other kernels didn't contain that bugfix. cheers, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/