On Tuesday 01 October 2002 19:13, Rik van Riel wrote:
> With one process that needs 150% of RAM as its working set,
> there simply is no way to win.
True, the object is merely to suck as little as possible. Note that
2.4.xx trounces 2.5.xx rather soundly on the test in question.
> > It should run the process as efficiently as possible, given that there
> > isn't any competition.
>
> If there is no competition I agree. However, if the system has
> something else running at the same time as qsbench I think the
> system should make an effort to have _only_ qsbench thrashing
> and not every other process in the system as well.
Did I miss something? I thought the test was just a single instance
of qsbench.
> > Try loading a high res photo in gimp and running any kind of interesting
> > script-fu on it. If it doesn't thrash, boot with half the memory and
> > repeat.
>
> But, should just the gimp thrash, or should every process on the
> machine thrash ?
Gimp should thrash exactly as much as it needs to, to get its job
done. No competition, remember? I realize you're getting ready to
do a sales job for process load control, but you needn't bother, I'm
already sold. We're not talking about that.
-- Daniel - 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 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:27 EST