Hi Ingo,
After adding H7 to 2.4.18pre3, I noticed that kernel compiles
on one of my test boxes got much slower.
Uniprocessor system (Cyrix 3) building a 2.4.18pre3 tree,
with the same .config, and a distclean before starting the compile.
2.4.18pre3 13.38s
2.4.18pre+H7 17.53s
I see similar slowdown when running H7 on 2.5 on this box.
regards,
Dave.
--
Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
SuSE Labs.
On Mon, 2002-01-14 at 23:45, Dave Jones wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
> After adding H7 to 2.4.18pre3, I noticed that kernel compiles
> on one of my test boxes got much slower.
> Uniprocessor system (Cyrix 3) building a 2.4.18pre3 tree,
> with the same .config, and a distclean before starting the compile.
>
> 2.4.18pre3 13.38s
> 2.4.18pre+H7 17.53s
>
> I see similar slowdown when running H7 on 2.5 on this box.
Another anecdote: my dnetc client (niced at 19) scores went from 4.2
Mkeys/s to 4.0 Mkeys/s. (Athlon 1.2GHz tbird).
--
- Antony Suter ([email protected]) "Examiner"
openpgp:7916EE67
- "Savahnah River. K Reactor. 1968. It was a very good year."
On Mon Jan 14 2002, Dave Jones wrote:
> After adding H7 to 2.4.18pre3, I noticed that kernel compiles
> on one of my test boxes got much slower.
> Uniprocessor system (Cyrix 3) building a 2.4.18pre3 tree,
> with the same .config, and a distclean before starting the compile.
>
> 2.4.18pre3 13.38s
> 2.4.18pre+H7 17.53s
I did the same; same config, fresh tree, reboot between the test.
The machine is a (single-processor) AMD K6-2/400 with 256 MB RAM.
Here are the results:
2.4.18-pre3 real 7m55.243s
user 6m34.080s
sys 0m27.610s
2.4.18-pre+H7 real 7m35.962s
user 6m34.270s
sys 0m27.700s
2.4.18-pre3-ac2 real 7m39.203s
user 6m34.110s
sys 0m28.740s
Ingo's scheduler rocks, it runs like hell (and is absolutely stable here) ;)
--
# Heinz Diehl, 68259 Mannheim, Germany
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:20:10PM +0100, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> I did the same; same config, fresh tree, reboot between the test.
> The machine is a (single-processor) AMD K6-2/400 with 256 MB RAM.
> Here are the results:
> ... <deletia>
> Ingo's scheduler rocks, it runs like hell (and is absolutely stable here) ;)
The issue seems to be when a process like dnetc is running
(which runs at +19 iirc), it seems to be getting scheduled way too
often.
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
On Mon Jan 14 2002, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> 2.4.18-pre3 real 7m55.243s
> user 6m34.080s
> sys 0m27.610s
>
> 2.4.18-pre+H7 real 7m35.962s
> user 6m34.270s
> sys 0m27.700s
>
> 2.4.18-pre3-ac2 real 7m39.203s
> user 6m34.110s
> sys 0m28.740s
>
2.4.18-pre3+H7+preempt-rml real 6m58.983s
user 6m34.500s
sys 0m27.820s
:))
--
# Heinz Diehl, 68259 Mannheim, Germany
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 08:29:25PM +0100, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On Mon Jan 14 2002, Heinz Diehl wrote:
>
> > 2.4.18-pre3 real 7m55.243s
> > user 6m34.080s
> > sys 0m27.610s
> >
> > 2.4.18-pre+H7 real 7m35.962s
> > user 6m34.270s
> > sys 0m27.700s
> >
> > 2.4.18-pre3-ac2 real 7m39.203s
> > user 6m34.110s
> > sys 0m28.740s
> >
>
> 2.4.18-pre3+H7+preempt-rml real 6m58.983s
> user 6m34.500s
> sys 0m27.820s
>
That sounds very good! But what about the VM code?
Is the VM in 2.4.18-pre3+H7 as good as in 2.4.18-pre2aa2?
On Monday, 14. January 2002 20:42, you wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 08:29:25PM +0100, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> > On Mon Jan 14 2002, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> >
> > > 2.4.18-pre3 real 7m55.243s
> > > user 6m34.080s
> > > sys 0m27.610s
> > >
> > > 2.4.18-pre+H7 real 7m35.962s
> > > user 6m34.270s
> > > sys 0m27.700s
> > >
> > > 2.4.18-pre3-ac2 real 7m39.203s
> > > user 6m34.110s
> > > sys 0m28.740s
> > >
> >
> > 2.4.18-pre3+H7+preempt-rml real 6m58.983s
> > user 6m34.500s
> > sys 0m27.820s
> >
> That sounds very good! But what about the VM code?
> Is the VM in 2.4.18-pre3+H7 as good as in 2.4.18-pre2aa2?
Of course _NOT_.
This is like apples and oranges...
You _must_ compare
2.4.18-pre3+H7+ -aa vm-22 from 2.4.18-pre2aa2
with
2.4.18-pre3+H7+ -rmap
After that you should apply preempt+locl-break or LL to both.
Have a look into Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
Greetings,
Dieter
--
Dieter N?tzel
Graduate Student, Computer Science
University of Hamburg
Department of Computer Science
@home: [email protected]
On Mon Jan 14 2002, Dieter N?tzel wrote:
> You _must_ compare
> 2.4.18-pre3+H7+ -aa vm-22 from 2.4.18-pre2aa2
> with
> 2.4.18-pre3+H7+ -rmap
This is not possible for me since rmap-11b does not apply cleanly to
2.4.18-pre3+H7, several hunks fail. I'm not a programmer, so I'm
not able to make the patches fit together.
> After that you should apply preempt+locl-break or LL to both.
The same here, lock-break does not apply to 2.4.18-pre3+H7 without
some failed hunks....
--
# Heinz Diehl, 68259 Mannheim, Germany
On Mon, 2002-01-14 at 17:40, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> > After that you should apply preempt+locl-break or LL to both.
>
> The same here, lock-break does not apply to 2.4.18-pre3+H7 without
> some failed hunks....
Just a note, if lock-break fails in chunks it is probably OK to just
ignore them. Each lock-break is independent so, while it is less lock
breaking, it is nearly the same and certainly works fine.
Wouldn't give the same advice for rmap, however. Best to make sure your
VM applies cleanly :)
Robert Love