Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S287215AbSAMRyH>; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:54:07 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S286944AbSAMRx5>; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:53:57 -0500
Received: from hq.fsmlabs.com ([209.155.42.197]:5392 "EHLO hq.fsmlabs.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S286758AbSAMRxu>;
	Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:53:50 -0500
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:51:04 -0700
From: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com
To: jogi@planetzork.ping.de
Cc: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
        Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        nigel@nrg.org, Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
Message-ID: <20020113105104.A16845@hq.fsmlabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <E16P0vl-0007Tu-00@the-village.bc.nu> <1010781207.819.27.camel@phantasy> <20020112121315.B1482@inspiron.school.suse.de> <20020112160714.A10847@planetzork.spacenet> <20020112095209.A5735@hq.fsmlabs.com> <20020113161823.B1439@planetzork.spacenet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <20020113161823.B1439@planetzork.spacenet>; from jogi@planetzork.ping.de on Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 04:18:23PM +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 04:18:23PM +0100, jogi@planetzork.ping.de wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 09:52:09AM -0700, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 04:07:14PM +0100, jogi@planetzork.ping.de wrote:
> > > I did my usual compile testings (untar kernel archive, apply patches,
> > > make -j<value> ...
> > 
> > If I understand your test, 
> > you are testing different loads - you are compiling kernels that may differ
> > in size and makefile organization, not to mention different layout on the
> > file system and disk.
> 
> No, I use a script which is run in single user mode after a reboot. So
> there are only a few processes running when I start the script (see
> attachment) and the jobs should start from the same environment.

But your description makes it sound like you do
	untar kernel X
	apply patches Y
	make -j  Tree

I'm sorry if I'm getting you wrong, but each of these steps is
variable.
Even if X and Y are the same each time, "Tree" is different.

The test should be
	reboot
		N times
		make clean
		time make -j Tree

Am I misunderstaning your test?


> 
> > What happens when you do the same test, compiling one kernel under multiple
> > different kernels?
> 
> That is exactly what I am doing. I even try to my best to have the exact
> same starting environment ...
> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Jogi
> 
> -- 
> 
> Well, yeah ... I suppose there's no point in getting greedy, is there?
> 
>     << Calvin & Hobbes >>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken 
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
 www.fsmlabs.com  www.rtlinux.com

-
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/