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/