On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
> >
> > Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
> > but it swaps too heavily. It's a little too conservative about
> > releasing cache now imho. (keeping about double what it should be
> > with this load.. easily [thump] tweaked;)
>
> "about double what it should be"
>
> That's an interesting statement, unless you have some
> arguments to define exactly how much cache the system
> should keep.
Do you think there's 60-80mb of good cachable data? ;-) The "double"
is based upon many hundreds of test runs. I "know" that performance
is best with this load when the cache stays around 25-35Mb. I know
this because I've done enough bend adjusting to get throughput to
within one minute of single task times to have absolutely no doubt.
I can get it to 30 seconds with much obscene tweaking, and have done
it with zero additional overhead for make -j 30 ten times in a row.
(that kernel was.. plain weird. perfect synchronization.. voodoo!)
> Or are you just comparing with 2.2 and you'd rather
> have 2.2 performance? ;)
Nope. I've bent this vm up a little and build kernels that kicked the
snot out of the previous record holder (classzone). I know for a fact
that it can kick major butt.. why I fiddle with it when it doesn't.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 21:00:26 EST