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

[Daniel Phillips]

On January 12, 2002 04:07 pm, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hello Andrea,
> 
> I did my usual compile testings (untar kernel archive, apply patches,
> make -j<value> ...
> 
> Here are some results (Wall time + Percent cpu) for each of the consecutive five runs:
> 
>         13-pre5aa1      18-pre2aa2      18-pre3         18-pre3s        18-pre3sp
> 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%
> j75:    6:41.47  81%    7:19.79  74%    6:49.43  79%    5:59.82  89%    6:00.83  88%
> j75:    6:10.32  88%    6:44.98  80%    7:01.01  77%    6:02.99  88%    5:48.00  91%
> j75:    6:28.55  84%    6:44.21  80%    9:33.78  57%    6:19.83  85%    5:49.07  91%
> j75:    6:17.15  86%    6:46.58  80%    7:24.52  73%    6:23.50  84%    5:58.06  88%
> 
> * build incomplete (OOM killer killed several cc1 ... )
> 
> So far 2.4.13-pre5aa1 had been the king of the block in compile times.
> But this has changed. Now the (by far) fastest kernel is 2.4.18-pre
> + Ingos scheduler patch (s) + preemptive patch (p). I did not test
> preemptive patch alone so far since I don't know if the one I have
> applies cleanly against -pre3 without Ingos patch. I used the
> following patches:
> 
> s: sched-O1-2.4.17-H6.patch
> p: preempt-kernel-rml-2.4.18-pre3-ingo-1.patch
> 
> I hope this info is useful to someone.

I'd like to add my 'me too' to those who have requested a re-run of this test, building
the *identical* kernel tree every time, starting from the same initial conditions.
Maybe that's what you did, but it's not clear from your post.

Thanks,

Daniel