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

Ken Brownfield
2002-01-11T21:39:22Z

I don't think I made the claim that this was a benchmark -- I certainly
realize that "make -j bzImage" is not real-world, but it is clearly
indicative of heavy VM/CPU/context load. Since I don't believe this
patch is currently in the running for inclusion, I'm just giving general
feedback to the patch author rather than making a case.

For instance, "make -j bzImage" reproduced the ext3 bug that Andrew
found where my other VM-intensive apps did not. I doubt we should keep
the bug in the kernel because the situation isn't real-world enough.

But yes, a bug is worse than a behavior flaw, granted.
--
Ken.
brownfld@irridia.com

On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 04:13:00PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
| > overall performance seems far lower. For instance, without the patch
| > the -j build finishes in ~10 minutes (2x933P3/256MB) but with the patch
|
| please, PLEASE stop using "make -j"
| for anything except the fork-bomb that it is.
| pretending that it's a benchmark, especially one
| to guide kernel tuning, is a travesty!
|
| if you want to simulate VM load, so something sane like
| boot with mem=32M, or a simple "mmap(lots); mlockall" tool.
|
| 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/