Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:16:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:16:20 -0500 Received: from denise.shiny.it ([194.20.232.1]:10391 "EHLO denise.shiny.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:16:20 -0500 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.7 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3DBE2EBE.DC860105@digeo.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:22:33 +0100 (CET) From: Giuliano Pochini To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.44-mm6 contest results Cc: linux kernel mailing list Cc: linux kernel mailing list , Jens Axboe , Con Kolivas Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 858 Lines: 25 On 29-Oct-2002 Andrew Morton wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: >> 2.5.44-mm6 [3] 226.9 33 50 2 3.18 >> >> Mem load has dropped off again > > Well that's one interpretation. The other is "goody, that pesky > kernel compile isn't slowing down my important memory-intensive > whateveritis so much". It's a tradeoff. This test should display the speed of the memory hog, kernel compile and also how much disk i/o occurred to be really meaningful. But IMO disk i/o is the one that slows things down, so we should try to keep it as low as possible (and this test show nothing about it). Bye. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/