From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 12 May 2001 18:28:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 12 May 2001 18:28:25 -0400 Received: from 213.237.80.42.adsl.he.worldonline.dk ([213.237.80.42]:46203 "EHLO udgaard.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 12 May 2001 18:28:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:29:47 +0200 From: Peter Rasmussen (udgaard) Message-Id: <200105122229.AAA03353@udgaard.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: How can I help with VIA MVP3 problems? Cc: plr@udgaard.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I'm not on the list so please also reply directly to me. I may soon be done :-) I was made aware of the following: >On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 07:37:23PM +0200, Peter Rasmussen wrote: >> 2.4.4-ac8 doing "time make dep clean bzImage modules modules_install" : >> >> udgaard:/usr/src/linux# cat /proc/meminfo >> total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached: >> Mem: 328101888 317947904 10153984 0 67219456 130404352 >> Swap: 542859264 0 542859264 >> >> ======================== 2.2.16 =========================== >> >> udgaard:~$ cat /proc/meminfo >> total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached: >> Mem: 65789952 60755968 5033984 28221440 7872512 24219648 >> Swap: 542859264 1368064 541491200 > >2.2.16 only recognizes 64 Mb? That makes all of the numbers less >interesting, I guess. > I hadn't noticed that before and it helped me improving the test. By ensuring that the two kernels looked at the same size RAM I found that the performance numbers were the same. However, I then now wonder why my system gets slower when increasing the amount of main RAM? Is it a RAM caching problem in the chipset or the board similar to the braindead Intel VX430 chipset that couldn't handle more than 64MB? I hope not, but I can't see any other reason, even though I thought such problems were of the past? Please let me know if you know something about it. I found the following relations with regard to memory settings. As the 2.2 and 2.4 kernels I use performed the same with little RAM (64MB), I stayed with the 2.4.4-ac8 for simplicity's sake. A 2.4.4-ac8 kernel build: 2.4.4-ac8 with 64MB RAM mem-setting: real 8m26.180s user 7m5.340s sys 0m39.430s 2.4.4-ac8 with 128MB RAM mem-setting: real 8m20.902s user 7m8.810s sys 0m39.800s 2.4.4-ac8 with 160MB RAM mem-setting: real 8m21.653s user 7m13.830s sys 0m37.840s 2.4.4-ac8 with 192MB RAM mem-setting: real 9m48.632s user 8m39.270s sys 0m39.740s So it seems around here the performance starts to decrease. I am still puzzled why the shared memory like the following is always zero on the 2.4 kernels? All I can remember checking it on has it like that, but I can't find any explanations about it? udgaard:/usr/src/linux# cat /proc/meminfo total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached: Mem: 64135168 63148032 987136 0 2965504 34447360 Swap: 542859264 147456 542711808 Thank you very much, Peter