Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:06:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:06:16 -0400 Received: from grip.panax.com ([63.163.40.2]:22543 "EHLO panax.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:06:12 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:06:38 -0400 From: Patrick McFarland To: Mark Hahn Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [unknown@panax.com: Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4] Message-ID: <20011013140638.J249@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9Iq5ULCa7nGtWwZS" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.12 i586 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net/ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --9Iq5ULCa7nGtWwZS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Heh, well 2.2 actually could get away with it. I think I remember seeing th= e system size (reported by make bzimage) to me 2 megs vs 2.4's 4 megs. Or m= aybe I'm just imagining things. On 13-Oct-2001, Mark Hahn wrote: > > Now, the great kernel hacker, ac, said that 2.2 is better at vm in low > > memory situations than 2.4 is. Why is this? Why hasnt someone fixed the= 2.4 > > code?=20 >=20 > not to slight TGKH AC, but he's also the 2.2 maintainer; perhaps there's= =20 > some paternal protectiveness there ;) >=20 > my test for VM is to compile a kernel on my crappy old BP6 with mem=3D64m; > I use a dedicated partition with a fresh ext2, unpack the same source tre= e, > make -j2 7 times, drop 1 outlier, and average: >=20 > 2.2.19: 584.462user 57.492system 385.112elapsed 166.5%CPU > 2.4.12: 582.318user 40.535system 337.093elapsed 184.5%CPU >=20 > notice that elapsed is noticably faster even than the 1+17 second > benefit to user and system times. Rik's VM seems to be slightly > slower on this test. with 128M, there's much less diference for=20 > any of the versions (and I don't have the patience for <64M.) >=20 > regards, mark hahn. >=20 > - > 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/ >=20 --=20 Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || unknown@panax.com --9Iq5ULCa7nGtWwZS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE7yIKt8Gvouk7G1cURAimxAJ43sph0LgA9teLOoA006xDoeyIs7QCfcECQ gy/d7ffCOQz/72dgXff5ft0= =edA4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9Iq5ULCa7nGtWwZS-- - 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/