Re: 2.4.10-ac10-preempt lmbench output.

From: Robert Love (
Date: Tue Oct 09 2001 - 21:02:36 EST

On Tue, 2001-10-09 at 20:36, safemode wrote:
> I'm very pleased so far with ac10 with the preempt patch. Much better than
> 2.4.9-ac18-preempt, which is what i was using. I'm just going to put up some
> output from lmbench to see if anyone who is running the non-preempt version
> is seeing better or worse timings and scores. Perhaps the improvement is
> all in my head due to me moving my atapi devices off of the promise card
> (since you're not supposed to put any on it) and now everything is generally
> running faster despite the kernel being used. Heh. so here they are

I've noticed good improvements on 2.4.10-ac10, too. You may want to try
Rik's eatcache patch available at - It does a
noticeable job of preventing the cache thrashing that occurs during
heavy cache activity. This will result in less VM activity, hopefully,
and thus less lock held time. He can use the feedback to tune it

Also, you will really want to run lmbench on 2.4.10-ac10-nopreempt
yourself. While a lot of lmbench is pretty kernel-specific
machine-agnostic, a faster MHz CPU will certainly change almost every

        Robert Love

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:29 EST