From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Mike Galbraith <mikeg@wen-online.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: -aa VM splitup
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 03:02:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020401030207.N1331@dualathlon.random> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C9807AD.65EBB69C@zip.com.au> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10203311422310.2622-100000@mikeg.wen-online.de>
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:26:14PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> #!/bin/sh
> # testo
> # /tmp is tmpfs
>
> for i in 1 2 3 4 5
> do
> mv /test/linux-2.5.7 /tmp/.
> mv /tmp/linux-2.5.7 /test/.
> done
It would be important to see the /tmp and /test tests benchmarked
separately, the way tmpfs and normal filesystem writes to disk is very
different and involves different algorithms, so it's not easy to say
which one could go wrong by looking at the global result. Just in case:
it is very important that the tmpfs contents are exactly the same before
starting the two tests. If you load something into /tmp before starting
the test performance will be different due the need of additional
swapouts.
So I would suggest moving linux-2.5.7 over two normal fs and then just
moving it over two tmpfs, so we know what's running slower.
Another possibility is that the lru could be more fair (we may better at
flushing dirty pages, allowing them to be discarded in lru order), I
assume your machine cannot take in cache a kernel tree, so there should
be a total cache trashing scenario. So you may want to verify with
vmstat that both kernels are doing the very same amount of I/O, just to
be sure one of the two isn't faster because of additional fariness in
the lru information, and not because of slower I/O.
Thanks,
Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-01 1:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-20 3:53 -aa VM splitup Andrew Morton
2002-03-31 12:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-04-01 1:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2002-04-01 1:52 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-01 2:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-04-01 12:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-04-01 18:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-04-01 19:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-04-01 23:25 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2002-04-02 4:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-04-02 7:28 ` Mike Galbraith
2002-04-02 19:25 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-04-03 5:28 ` Mike Galbraith
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-03 0:37 Andreas Möller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020401030207.N1331@dualathlon.random \
--to=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikeg@wen-online.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox