I did a few more test runs on each of the kernels to check if the results are
reproducible:
2.4.7-plain:
17.320u 115.100s 2:17.36 96.4% 0+0k 0+0io 110pf+0w
17.200u 94.170s 1:53.14 98.4% 0+0k 0+0io 110pf+0w
17.490u 113.730s 2:13.48 98.3% 0+0k 0+0io 110pf+0w
2.4.5-use_once:
14.730u 108.310s 2:09.57 94.9% 0+0k 0+0io 203pf+0w
13.880u 79.410s 1:38.64 94.5% 0+0k 0+0io 226pf+0w
14.840u 78.680s 1:37.86 95.5% 0+0k 0+0io 238pf+0w
The time under 2.4.5-use_once stays constant from the second run on (I tried
3 more times), while 2.4.7 shows pretty varying performance but I have never
seen it getting better than the 1:53.14 from the second run above. I had
stopped all services which I knew to cause periodic activity (exim,
cron/anacron) which could disturb the tests.
I also noticed, that under 2.4.5 after the 3 test runs the KDE Taskbasr got
swapped out, while under 2.4.7 this was not the case.
> Of course, if it improved performance even when "broken", that would be
> even better. I like those kind sof algorithms.
Who doesn't? :)
>
> Linus
-- Patrick Dreker --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Is there anything else I can contribute? The latitude and longtitude of the bios writers current position, and a ballistic missile. Alan Cox on linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org - 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/