[unknown@panax.com: Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4]

[unknown@panax.com: Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4]

[Patrick McFarland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1473 bytes --]

Heh, well 2.2 actually could get away with it. I think I remember seeing the system size (reported by make bzimage) to me 2 megs vs 2.4's 4 megs. Or maybe I'm just imagining things.

On 13-Oct-2001, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > Now, the great kernel hacker, ac, said that 2.2 is better at vm in low
> > memory situations than 2.4 is. Why is this? Why hasnt someone fixed the 2.4
> > code? 
> 
> not to slight TGKH AC, but he's also the 2.2 maintainer; perhaps there's 
> some paternal protectiveness there ;)
> 
> my test for VM is to compile a kernel on my crappy old BP6 with mem=64m;
> I use a dedicated partition with a fresh ext2, unpack the same source tree,
> make -j2 7 times, drop 1 outlier, and average:
> 
> 2.2.19: 584.462user 57.492system 385.112elapsed 166.5%CPU
> 2.4.12: 582.318user 40.535system 337.093elapsed 184.5%CPU
> 
> notice that elapsed is noticably faster even than the 1+17 second
> benefit to user and system times.  Rik's VM seems to be slightly
> slower on this test.  with 128M, there's much less diference for 
> any of the versions (and I don't have the patience for <64M.)
> 
> regards, mark hahn.
> 
> -
> 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/
> 

-- 
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || unknown@panax.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]