Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable

Daniel Phillips
2002-01-14T04:49:06Z

On January 12, 2002 04:07 pm, jogi@planetzork.ping.de wrote:
> Hello Andrea,
>
> I did my usual compile testings (untar kernel archive, apply patches,
> make -j<value> ...
>
> Here are some results (Wall time + Percent cpu) for each of the consecutive five runs:
>
> 13-pre5aa1 18-pre2aa2 18-pre3 18-pre3s 18-pre3sp
> 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%
> j75: 6:41.47 81% 7:19.79 74% 6:49.43 79% 5:59.82 89% 6:00.83 88%
> j75: 6:10.32 88% 6:44.98 80% 7:01.01 77% 6:02.99 88% 5:48.00 91%
> j75: 6:28.55 84% 6:44.21 80% 9:33.78 57% 6:19.83 85% 5:49.07 91%
> j75: 6:17.15 86% 6:46.58 80% 7:24.52 73% 6:23.50 84% 5:58.06 88%
>
> * build incomplete (OOM killer killed several cc1 ... )
>
> So far 2.4.13-pre5aa1 had been the king of the block in compile times.
> But this has changed. Now the (by far) fastest kernel is 2.4.18-pre
> + Ingos scheduler patch (s) + preemptive patch (p). I did not test
> preemptive patch alone so far since I don't know if the one I have
> applies cleanly against -pre3 without Ingos patch. I used the
> following patches:
>
> s: sched-O1-2.4.17-H6.patch
> p: preempt-kernel-rml-2.4.18-pre3-ingo-1.patch
>
> I hope this info is useful to someone.

I'd like to add my 'me too' to those who have requested a re-run of this test, building
the *identical* kernel tree every time, starting from the same initial conditions.
Maybe that's what you did, but it's not clear from your post.

Thanks,

Daniel