On Wed, 2007-25-07 at 17:09 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Eric St-Laurent wrote:
> > I test this on my main system, so patches with basic testing and
> > reasonable stability are preferred. I just want to avoid data corruption
> > bugs. FYI, I used to run the -rt tree most of the time.
>
> OK here is one which just changes the rate that the active and inactive
> lists get scanned. Data corruption bugs should be minimal ;)
>
Nick,
I have tried your patch with my test case, unfortunately it doesn't
help.
Numbers did vary a little bit more, and it seemed drop_caches was not
working as well as usual (used between the runs).
Also, overall the runs took about .1s more to complete.
Linux 2.6.23-rc1-nick PREEMPT x86_64
Base test:
1st run: 0m9.123s
2nd run: 0m3.565s
3rd run: 0m3.553s
4th run: 0m3.565s
Reading a large file test:
1st run: 0m9.146s
2nd run: 0m3.560s
`/tmp/large_file' -> `/dev/null'
3rd run: 0m19.759s
4th run: 0m3.515s
Copying (using cp) a large file test:
1st run: 0m9.085s
2nd run: 0m3.522s
`/tmp/large_file' -> `/tmp/large_file.copy'
3rd run: 0m9.977s
4th run: 0m3.518s
Anyway, what is the theory behind the patch?
- Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]