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

Robert Love
2002-01-13T18:20:47Z

On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 12:42, jogi@planetzork.ping.de wrote:

> 13-pre5aa1 18-pre2aa2 18-pre3 18-pre3s 18-pre3sp 18-pre3minill
> 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% 7:07.56 77%
> j75: 6:41.47 81% 7:19.79 74% 6:49.43 79% 5:59.82 89% 6:00.83 88% 7:17.15 74%
> j75: 6:10.32 88% 6:44.98 80% 7:01.01 77% 6:02.99 88% 5:48.00 91% 6:47.48 80%
> j75: 6:28.55 84% 6:44.21 80% 9:33.78 57% 6:19.83 85% 5:49.07 91% 6:34.02 83%
> j75: 6:17.15 86% 6:46.58 80% 7:24.52 73% 6:23.50 84% 5:58.06 88% 7:01.39 77%

Again, preempt seems to reign supreme. Where is all the information
correlating preempt is inferior? To be fair, however, we should bench a
mini-ll+s test.

But I stand by my original point that none of this matters all too
much. A preemptive kernel will allow for future latency reduction
_without_ using explicit scheduling points everywhere there is a
problem. This means we can tackle the problem and not provide a million
bandaids.

Robert Love