Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263831AbUDNA0m (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:26:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263833AbUDNA0l (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:26:41 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:59131 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263831AbUDNA0j (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:26:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:38:02 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Andrew Morton cc: hugh@veritas.com, andrea@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Benchmarking objrmap under memory pressure Message-ID: <120240000.1081903082@flay> In-Reply-To: <20040413005111.71c7716d.akpm@osdl.org> References: <1130000.1081841981@[10.10.2.4]> <20040413005111.71c7716d.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2082 Lines: 46 >> UP Athlon 2100+ with 512Mb of RAM. Rebooted clean before each test >> then did "make clean; make vmlinux; make clean". Then I timed a >> "make -j 256 vmlinux" to get some testing under mem pressure. >> >> I was trying to test the overhead of objrmap under memory pressure, >> but it seems it's actually distinctly negative overhead - rather pleasing >> really ;-) >> >> 2.6.5 >> 225.18user 30.05system 6:33.72elapsed 64%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k >> 0inputs+0outputs (37590major+2604444minor)pagefaults 0swaps >> >> 2.6.5-anon_mm >> 224.53user 26.00system 5:29.08elapsed 76%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k >> 0inputs+0outputs (29127major+2577211minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > A four second reduction in system time caused a one minute reduction in > runtime? Pull the other one ;) > > Average of five runs, please... You're right - it's rather variable. Still doesn't look bad though. 2.6.5 Average elapsed = 6:11 224.92user 30.15system 5:44.19elapsed 74%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 225.04user 30.23system 6:02.49elapsed 70%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 225.28user 29.60system 5:48.22elapsed 73%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 225.81user 31.75system 6:42.38elapsed 64%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 225.23user 30.20system 6:40.48elapsed 63%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 2.6.5-anon_mm Average elapsed = 5:43 224.34user 25.43system 4:51.23elapsed 85%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 224.23user 25.93system 5:00.79elapsed 83%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 224.39user 26.36system 5:37.71elapsed 74%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 225.65user 27.13system 6:28.00elapsed 65%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 225.14user 27.26system 6:39.61elapsed 63%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k I've kicked off the -aa tree tests - will post them later tonight. - 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/