Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S287571AbSAMSUr>; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:20:47 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S287421AbSAMSU1>; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:20:27 -0500
Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:61713 "EHLO zero.tech9.net")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S287417AbSAMSUV>;
	Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:20:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: jogi@planetzork.ping.de
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>, Ed Sweetman <ed.sweetman@wmich.edu>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com,
        Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, nigel@nrg.org,
        Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20020113184249.A15955@planetzork.spacenet>
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>
	<20020112180016.T1482@inspiron.school.suse.de>
	<005301c19b9b$6acc61e0$0501a8c0@psuedogod> <3C409B2D.DB95D659@zip.com.au> 
	<20020113184249.A15955@planetzork.spacenet>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.1 
Date: 13 Jan 2002 13:22:57 -0500
Message-Id: <1010946178.11848.14.camel@phantasy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 12:42, jogi@planetzork.ping.de wrote:

>         13-pre5aa1      18-pre2aa2      18-pre3         18-pre3s        18-pre3sp       18-pre3minill  
> j100:   6:59.79  78%    7:07.62  76%        *           6:39.55  81%    6:24.79  83%        *
> j100:   7:03.39  77%    8:10.04  66%        *           8:07.13  66%    6:21.23  83%        *
> j100:   6:40.40  81%    7:43.15  70%        *           6:37.46  81%    6:03.68  87%        *
> j100:   7:45.12  70%    7:11.59  75%        *           7:14.46  74%    6:06.98  87%        *
> j100:   6:56.71  79%    7:36.12  71%        *           6:26.59  83%    6:11.30  86%        *
> 		                                                                                          
> j75:    6:22.33  85%    6:42.50  81%    6:48.83  80%    6:01.61  89%    5:42.66  93%    7:07.56  77%
> j75:    6:41.47  81%    7:19.79  74%    6:49.43  79%    5:59.82  89%    6:00.83  88%    7:17.15  74%
> j75:    6:10.32  88%    6:44.98  80%    7:01.01  77%    6:02.99  88%    5:48.00  91%    6:47.48  80%
> j75:    6:28.55  84%    6:44.21  80%    9:33.78  57%    6:19.83  85%    5:49.07  91%    6:34.02  83%
> j75:    6:17.15  86%    6:46.58  80%    7:24.52  73%    6:23.50  84%    5:58.06  88%    7:01.39  77%

Again, preempt seems to reign supreme.  Where is all the information
correlating preempt is inferior?  To be fair, however, we should bench a
mini-ll+s test.

But I stand by my original point that none of this matters all too
much.  A preemptive kernel will allow for future latency reduction
_without_ using explicit scheduling points everywhere there is a
problem.  This means we can tackle the problem and not provide a million
bandaids.

	Robert Love

-
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/