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, 3 Sep 2002 22:52:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:52:39 -0400 Received: from tomts24.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.187]:21658 "EHLO tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:52:39 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ed Tomlinson Organization: me To: William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.5.33-mm1 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:55:43 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" References: <3D7437AC.74EAE22B@zip.com.au> <3D755E2D.7A6D55C6@zip.com.au> <20020904011503.GT888@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20020904011503.GT888@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200209032255.43198.tomlins@cam.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On September 3, 2002 09:15 pm, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > William Lee Irwin III What are the numbers telling you? Is you test faster or slower with slablru? Does it page more or less? Is looking at the number of objects the way to determine if slablru is helping? I submit the paging and runtimes are much better indications? What do story do they tell? Thanks Ed