Con Kolivas wrote:
quoted text
> On Friday 04 May 2007 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> agreed. Con, IIRC you wrote a testcase for this, right? Could you please
>> send us the results of that testing?
> 
> Yes, sorry it's a crappy test app but works on 32bit. Timed with prefetch 
> disabled and then enabled swap prefetch saves ~5 seconds on average hardware 
> on this one test case. I had many users try this and the results were between 
> 2 and 10 seconds, but always showed a saving on this testcase. This effect 
> easily occurs on printing a big picture, editing a large file, compressing an 
> iso image or whatever in real world workloads. Smaller, but much more 
> frequent effects of this over the course of a day obviously also occur and do 
> add up.
> 
I'll try this when I get the scheduler stuff done, and also dig out the 
"resp1" stuff for "back when." I see the most recent datasets were 
comparing 2.5.43-mm2 responsiveness with 2.4.19-ck7, you know I always 
test your stuff ;-)

Guess it might need a bit of polish for current hardware, I was testing 
on *small* machines, deliberately.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

-
unsubscribe notice
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/