[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707250104180.2229@asgard.lang.hm>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: david@...g.hm
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
cc: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/25/2007 06:46 AM, david@...g.hm wrote:
>
>> you could make a synthetic test by writing a memory hog that allocates 3/4
>> of your ram then pauses waiting for input and then randomly accesses the
>> memory for a while (say randomly accessing 2x # of pages allocated) and
>> then pausing again before repeating
>
> Something like this?
>
>> run two of these, alternating which one is running at any one time. time
>> how long it takes to do the random accesses.
>>
>> the difference in this time should be a fair example of how much it would
>> impact the user.
>
> Notenotenote, not sure what you're going to show with it (times are simply as
> horrendous as I'd expect) but thought I'd try to inject something other than
> steaming cups of 4-letter beverages.
when the swap readahead is enabled does it make a significant difference
in the time to do the random access?
if it does that should show a direct benifit of the patch in a simulation
of a relativly common workflow (startup a memory hog like openoffice then
try and go back to your prior work)
David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists