From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:01:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: VM Report was:Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps In-Reply-To: <15136.62579.588726.954053@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: John Stoffel Cc: Tobias Ringstrom , Jonathan Morton , Shane Nay , Marcelo Tosatti , "Dr S.M. Huen" , Sean Hunter , Xavier Bestel , lkml , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote: > >>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Ringstrom writes: > > Tobias> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > >> I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage) > >> while testing some other stuff today. > > Tobias> Could you please explain what is good about this test? I > Tobias> understand that it will stress the VM, but will it do so in a > Tobias> realistic and relevant way? > > I agree, this isn't really a good test case. I'd rather see what > happens when you fire up a gimp session to edit an image which is > *almost* the size of RAM, or even just 50% the size of ram. Then how > does that affect your other processes that are running at the same > time? OK, riddle me this. If this test is a crummy test, just how is it that I was able to warn Rik in advance that when 2.4.5 was released, he should expect complaints? How did I _know_ that? The answer is that I fiddle with Rik's code a lot, and I test with this test because it tells me a lot. It may not tell you anything, but it does me. -Mike -- 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/