From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265401AbTLRXjq (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:39:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265403AbTLRXjq (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:39:46 -0500 Received: from holomorphy.com ([199.26.172.102]:35221 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265401AbTLRXjo (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:39:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:38:33 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III To: rl@hellgate.ch, Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , kernel@kolivas.org, chris@cvine.freeserve.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mbligh@aracnet.com Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test9 - poor swap performance on low end machines Message-ID: <20031218233833.GE22443@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , rl@hellgate.ch, Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , kernel@kolivas.org, chris@cvine.freeserve.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mbligh@aracnet.com References: <20031217214107.GA3650@k3.hellgate.ch> <20031218225324.GA24850@k3.hellgate.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031218225324.GA24850@k3.hellgate.ch> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:53:25PM +0100, Roger Luethi wrote: > Depends on the axis in your graph. The benchmarks I am using are not > balancing on the verge of going bad, if that's what you mean. They > cut deep (30 to 100 MB) into swap through most of their run time, > and there's quite a bit of swap turnover with compiling stuff. > I also completed a best effort attempt at determining the impact of > any differences between mem= and actual RAM removal. I had to adapt > the kbuild benchmark somewhat to the available hardware. I benchmarked > with 48 MB RAM at mem=16M and again after removing 32MB of RAM. If there > was a difference in performance, it was very small for both 2.4.23 and > 2.6.0-test11, with the latter taking over 2.5 times as long to complete > the benchmark. A bogon was recently fixed in 2.6 that caused the results to differ. They should not differ. -- wli