From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2993163AbXCJClY (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:41:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2993161AbXCJClY (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:41:24 -0500 Received: from waste.org ([66.93.16.53]:59217 "EHLO waste.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993165AbXCJClX (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:41:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:26:56 -0600 From: Matt Mackall To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux-kernel , akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc3-mm1 RSDL results Message-ID: <20070310022656.GQ10394@waste.org> References: <20070309053931.GA10459@waste.org> <200703101228.38923.kernel@kolivas.org> <20070310014230.GP10394@waste.org> <200703101320.23125.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703101320.23125.kernel@kolivas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:20:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > Progress at last! And without any patches! Well those look very reasonable to > me. Especially since -j5 is a worst case scenario. Well that's with a noyield patch and your sched_tick fix. > But would you say it's still _adequate_ with ccache considering you > only have 1/6th cpu left for X? With and without ccache it's quite a > different workload so they will behave differently. No, I don't think 1/6th is being left for X in the ccache case so I think there's a bug lurking here. My memload, execload, and forkload test cases did better even with X niced. To confirm, I've just run 15 instances of memload with unniced Xorg and it performs better than make -j 5 with ccache. If I have some time tomorrow, I'll try to do a straight -mm1 to mm2 comparison with different loads. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.