From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 03:32:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 03:32:57 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-105.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.105]:31898 "HELO ws4-4.us4.outblaze.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 03:32:54 -0400 Message-ID: <20021014073837.21244.qmail@linuxmail.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" To: Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:38:37 +0800 Subject: Re:Benchmark results from resp1 trivial response time test X-Originating-Ip: 194.185.48.246 X-Originating-Server: ws4-4.us4.outblaze.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Bill Davidsen [...] > > Do you think is it possible to apply the patch on the top of 2.5.42-mm2 ? > > I haven't tried it yet, but I'm interested in your result, since my > 2.5.41-mm2v result was actually better then plain -mm2. I am just building > some new test stuff on an SMP machine so I can compare uni and SMP > performance under load, and I'll look at 2.5.42 tonight or tomorrow. Well, I did't run the test against 2.5.41-mm2, I'll do it just to compare the result with 2.5.42-mm2+vmscan patch. > My reference machine was a 96MB machine, if you're really curious about > this you could boot with mem=96m (or 128m) and rerun the test. In any case > I have the kids tonight, if I get some time I'll try it, otherwise > tomorrow. Ok, I'll try to find the time to run the test against 2.5.42 and 96 or 128MiB of Ram. Paolo -- Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org Powered by Outblaze