From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264880AbTLRAWR (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:22:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264881AbTLRAWR (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:22:17 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-bos.redhat.com ([66.187.230.200]:46720 "EHLO chimarrao.boston.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264880AbTLRAWQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:22:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:21:52 -0500 (EST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com To: Roger Luethi cc: Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , , , , , Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test9 - poor swap performance on low end machines In-Reply-To: <20031217214107.GA3650@k3.hellgate.ch> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Roger Luethi wrote: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:49:51 +0100, Roger Luethi wrote: > > right now just to make sure. It's going to take a couple of hours, > > I'll follow up with results. > > For efax, a benchmark run with mem=32M, the difference in run time > between values 256 and 1024 for /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes is noise > (< 1%). OK, so I guess you're not as close to the knee of the curve as this kind of tests tend to be ;) -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan