Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:32:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:32:39 -0400 Received: from c16598.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.243.217]:46530 "HELO pc.kolivas.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:32:39 -0400 Message-ID: <1030199809.3d679a012042b@kolivas.net> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:36:49 +1000 From: conman@kolivas.net To: Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VM changes added to performance patches for 2.4.19 References: <1030170794.3d6728aa24046@kolivas.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 990 Lines: 20 Quoting Daniel Phillips : > Would you be so kind as to attempt to quantify that? Ummm... I'm not sure if you're making fun or me? I haven't done any objective tests so I can't quantify it ?? I just found the responsiveness of the machine a little better and don't have the resources, time or inclination to test it with a benchmark. It's my understanding that the -aa patch performed better on benchmarks, but that some people reported the responsiveness was better with -rmap anyway. I'd agree with the latter statement. I offer both patches with mine so if people want to try my patch and feel strongly either way they can choose. My aim is to optimise system response for single cpu desktops, not multi cpu servers. Con. - 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/