From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:51:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:51:28 -0400 Received: from [195.223.140.107] ([195.223.140.107]:46830 "EHLO athlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:51:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:51:43 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Craig Kulesa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.10 VM vs. 2.4.9-ac14 (+ ac14-aging) Message-ID: <20010925205143.C8350@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from ckulesa@as.arizona.edu on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 05:08:49AM -0700 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 05:08:49AM -0700, Craig Kulesa wrote: > 2.4.10 streaming IO test: failed (stutters, frequent gaps in playback) > 2.4.10 app test: 30020 kB swapped out; 22308 kB swapped in (cumulative) > 22 second StarOffice load time; 6-7 sec GIMP img rotate I'd appreciate if you could repeat the test with vm-tweaks-1 applied to see the difference. Andrea