Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:50:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:49:44 -0400 Received: from mailrelay1.inwind.it ([212.141.54.101]:61165 "EHLO mailrelay1.inwind.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:49:35 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011001235032.02571860@pop.tiscalinet.it> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:50:32 +0200 To: Rik van Riel From: Lorenzo Allegrucci Subject: Re: VM: 2.4.10 vs. 2.4.10-ac2 and qsort() Cc: , Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011001203320.02381600@pop.tiscalinet.it> 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 At 16.23 01/10/01 -0300, you wrote: >On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote: > >> Disclaimer: >> I don't know if this "benchmark" is meaningful or not, but anyhow.. > >I'm not sure either, since qsort doesn't really have much >locality of reference but just walks all over the place. Yes, it was exactly my goal :) >This is direct contrast with the basic assumption on which >VM and CPU caches are built ;) Indeed, it put strain the VM by a pseudo random-sequential access pattern. >I wonder how eg. merge sort would perform ... It would perform better, but merge sort doesn't trash the system :) I wanted to test the system in trashing conditions. Just curious. -- Lorenzo - 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/