Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
>
> > Mike> OK, riddle me this. If this test is a crummy test, just how is
> > Mike> it that I was able to warn Rik in advance that when 2.4.5 was
> > Mike> released, he should expect complaints? How did I _k
> reads the RTC device. The patched RTC driver can then
> measure the elapsed time between the interrupt and the
> read from userspace. Voila: latency.
interesting, but I'm not sure there's much advantage over
doing it entirely in user-space with the normal /dev/rtc:
http://brain.mcmas
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> >> On the subject of Mike Galbraith's kernel compilation test, how much
> >> physical RAM does he have for his machine, what type of CPU is it, and what
> >> (approximate) type of device does he use for swap? I'll see if I can
> >> partially duplicate
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
>
> > More importantly, a *repeatable* set of tests is what is needed to
> > test the VM and get consistent results from run to run, so you can see
> > how your changes are impacting performance. The kernel comp
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage)
> > > > while testing some other stu
>> On the subject of Mike Galbraith's kernel compilation test, how much
>> physical RAM does he have for his machine, what type of CPU is it, and what
>> (approximate) type of device does he use for swap? I'll see if I can
>> partially duplicate his results at this end. So far all my tests have
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> On the subject of Mike Galbraith's kernel compilation test, how much
> physical RAM does he have for his machine, what type of CPU is it, and what
> (approximate) type of device does he use for swap? I'll see if I can
> partially duplicate his results
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
> > I agree, this isn't really a good test case. I'd rather see what
> > happens when you fire up a gimp session to edit an image which is
> > *almost* the size of RAM, or even just 50% the size of ram.
>
> OK,
Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
> [ Re-entering discussion after too long a day and a long sleep... ]
>
> >> There is the problem in terms of some people want pure interactive
> >> performance, while others are looking for throughput over all else,
> >> but those are both extremes of the spectrum. Tho
[ Re-entering discussion after too long a day and a long sleep... ]
>> There is the problem in terms of some people want pure interactive
>> performance, while others are looking for throughput over all else,
>> but those are both extremes of the spectrum. Though I suspect
>> raw throughput is t
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
>
> Marcelo> Now the stock kernel gives us crappy interactivity compared
> Marcelo> to my patch. (Note: my patch still does not gives me the
> Marcelo> interactivity I want under high VM loads, but I hope to get
> Marcelo> there soon).
>
> This raises t
Marcelo> Now the stock kernel gives us crappy interactivity compared
Marcelo> to my patch. (Note: my patch still does not gives me the
Marcelo> interactivity I want under high VM loads, but I hope to get
Marcelo> there soon).
This raises the important question, how can we objectively measure
in
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
>
> Mike> OK, riddle me this. If this test is a crummy test, just how is
> Mike> it that I was able to warn Rik in advance that when 2.4.5 was
> Mike> released, he should expect complaints? How did I _know_ that?
> Mike> The answer is that I fiddle with
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage)
> > > while testing some other stuff today.
> >
> > Could you please explain what is good
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
> Mike> OK, riddle me this. If this test is a crummy test, just how is
> Mike> it that I was able to warn Rik in advance that when 2.4.5 was
> Mike> released, he should expect complaints? How did I _know_ that?
> Mike> The answer is that I fiddle with Rik
Mike> OK, riddle me this. If this test is a crummy test, just how is
Mike> it that I was able to warn Rik in advance that when 2.4.5 was
Mike> released, he should expect complaints? How did I _know_ that?
Mike> The answer is that I fiddle with Rik's code a lot, and I test
Mike> with this test b
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
> > "Tobias" == Tobias Ringstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tobias> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> >> I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage)
> >> while testing some other stuff today.
>
> Tobias> Could y
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage)
> > while testing some other stuff today.
>
> Could you please explain what is good about this test? I understand that
> it will stress
> "Tobias" == Tobias Ringstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tobias> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage)
>> while testing some other stuff today.
Tobias> Could you please explain what is good about this test? I
Tob
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage)
> while testing some other stuff today.
Could you please explain what is good about this test? I understand that
it will stress the VM, but will it do so in a realistic and relevant w
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/linux-patches/vm-update-2.patch
>
> Try this. I can't guarantee it's SMP-safe yet (I'm leaving the gurus to
> that, but they haven't told me about any errors in the past hour so I'm
> assuming they aren't going to find
At 12:29 am +0100 8/6/2001, Shane Nay wrote:
>(VM report at Marcelo Tosatti's request. He has mentioned that rather than
>complaining about the VM that people mention what there experiences were. I
>have tried to do so in the way that he asked.)
>> By performance you mean interactivity or throu
(VM report at Marcelo Tosatti's request. He has mentioned that rather than
complaining about the VM that people mention what there experiences were. I
have tried to do so in the way that he asked.)
> 1) Describe what you're running. (your workload)
A lot of daemons, all on a private network
23 matches
Mail list logo
