Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 02:47:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 02:47:42 -0500 Received: from lilly.ping.de ([62.72.90.2]:18707 "HELO lilly.ping.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 02:47:37 -0500 Date: 5 Nov 2001 08:46:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20011105084633.A32243@planetzork.spacenet> From: jogi@planetzork.ping.de To: "Linus Torvalds" Cc: "Kernel Mailing List" Subject: Re: Linux-2.4.14-pre8.. In-Reply-To: <20011104192725.A847@planetzork.spacenet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20011104192725.A847@planetzork.spacenet>; from jogi on Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 07:27:25PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 07:27:25PM +0100, jogi wrote: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 05:44:18PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Ok, this is hopefully the last 2.4.14 pre-kernel, and per popular demand I > > hope to avoid any major changes between "last pre" and final. So give it a > > whirl, and don't whine if the final doesn't act in a way you like it to. > > > > Special thanks to Andrea - we spent too much time tracking down a subtle > > sigsegv problem, but we got it in the end. > > > > Also, I was able to reproduce the total lack of interactivity that the > > google people complained about, and while I didn't run the google tests > > themselves, at least the load I had is fixed. > > > > But most of the changes are actually trying to catch up with some of the > > emails that I ignored while working on the VM issues. I hope the VM is > > good to go, along with a real 2.4.14. > > The results for 2.4.14-pre8 of my kernel compile tests are following: > > j25 j50 j75 j100 > > 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 5:02.63 5:09.18 5:26.27 5:34.36 > 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:58.80 5:12.30 5:26.23 5:32.14 > 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:57.66 5:11.29 5:45.90 6:03.53 > 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:58.39 5:13.10 5:29.32 5:44.49 > 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:57.93 5:09.76 5:24.76 5:26.79 > > 2.4.14-pre6: 4:58.88 5:16.68 5:45.93 7:16.56 > 2.4.14-pre6: 4:55.72 5:34.65 5:57.94 6:50.58 > 2.4.14-pre6: 4:59.46 5:16.88 6:25.83 6:51.43 > 2.4.14-pre6: 4:56.38 5:18.88 6:15.97 6:31.72 > 2.4.14-pre6: 4:55.79 5:17.47 6:00.23 6:44.85 > > 2.4.14-pre7: 4:56.39 5:22.84 6:09.05 9:56.59 > 2.4.14-pre7: 4:56.55 5:25.15 7:01.37 7:03.74 > 2.4.14-pre7: 4:59.44 5:15.10 6:06.78 12:51.39* > 2.4.14-pre7: 4:58.07 5:30.55 6:15.37 * > 2.4.14-pre7: 4:58.17 5:26.80 6:41.44 * > > 2.4.14-pre8: 4:57.14 5:10.72 5:54.42 6:37.39 > 2.4.14-pre8: 4:59.57 5:11.63 6:34.97 11:23.77 > 2.4.14-pre8: 4:58.18 5:16.67 6:07.88 6:32.38 > 2.4.14-pre8: 4:56.23 5:16.57 6:15.01 7:02.45 > 2.4.14-pre8: 4:58.53 5:19.98 5:39.09 12:08.69 > > Is there anything else I can measure during the kernel compiles? > Are the numbers for >= -pre6 slower because of measures taken to > increase the "interactivity" / responsivness of the kernel? > > The part that looks most suspicious to me is that the results > for make -j100 vary so much ... So here are the results of the complete run for the SetPage... patch of Linus: 2.4.14-pre8vmscan2: 5:01.64 5:12.03 6:08.62 6:19.32 2.4.14-pre8vmscan2: 4:56.70 5:15.50 6:17.80 6:50.60 2.4.14-pre8vmscan2: 4:56.86 5:14.12 6:02.09 6:16.18 2.4.14-pre8vmscan2: 4:59.43 5:18.02 5:58.50 6:16.87 2.4.14-pre8vmscan2: 4:56.75 5:17.18 5:52.73 6:15.04 Regards, Jogi -- Well, yeah ... I suppose there's no point in getting greedy, is there? << Calvin & Hobbes >> - 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/