From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:47:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:47:12 -0400 Received: from lilly.ping.de ([62.72.90.2]:49169 "HELO lilly.ping.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:47:05 -0400 Date: 12 Aug 2001 19:46:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20010812194618.A880@planetzork.spacenet> From: jogi@planetzork.ping.de To: "Rik van Riel" Cc: "Alan Cox" , "Mike Galbraith" , "Steve Kieu" , "kernel" Subject: Re: Performance 2.4.8 is worse than 2.4.x<8 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 11:00:31AM -0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 11:00:31AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Here, disk write throughput seems to want some tweaking, and Bonnie > > > doing it's rewrite test triggers a very large and persistant inactive > > > shortage which shouldn't be there (imho). > > > > This is one of the reasons I kept the 2.4.7 vm. The 2.4.8 vm is better > > than 2.4.8pre but not actually better than the older VM by feel or > > measurement on my test boxes > > There are some open-ended questions wrt. the use-once idea, > its implementation and the way the thing has been integrated > with the rest of the kernel. > > Some suspect interactions and some things which just aren't > clear yet don't make it seem the best idea to start integrating > the use-once idea in mainli^W-ac yet... Is it possible that this causes the slowdown I see when I benchmark kernel compilations? Doing make -j2 bzImage modules on 2.4.7 gives: User time (seconds): 279.62 System time (seconds): 22.19 Percent of CPU this job got: 77% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 6:29.95 ... Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 1085696 Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1263226 With 2.4.8 (default bdflush settings): User time (seconds): 280.75 System time (seconds): 21.46 Percent of CPU this job got: 71% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 7:04.14 ... Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 1085927 Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1263289 With 2.4.8 (and 50/75 bdflush settings): User time (seconds): 282.20 System time (seconds): 20.82 Percent of CPU this job got: 71% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 7:03.27 ... Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 1094004 Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1265526 Since 2.4.8 should be better when running short of memory I tried make -j bzImage modules also, with 2.4.7: User time (seconds): 294.16 System time (seconds): 32.70 Percent of CPU this job got: 32% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 16:40.38 ... Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 1560301 Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1601194 and with 2.4.8 (default bdflush) User time (seconds): 293.57 System time (seconds): 50.55 Percent of CPU this job got: 24% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 23:35.30 ... Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 1592833 Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1556612 System is an Athlon-1.2GHz with 256MB DDR-Ram. If you want further compilation benchmarks just let me know. Regards, Jogi -- Well, yeah ... I suppose there's no point in getting greedy, is there? << Calvin & Hobbes >>