On Saturday 10 March 2007 13:26, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:20:22PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > Progress at last! And without any patches! Well those look very > > reasonable to me. Especially since -j5 is a worst case scenario. > > Well that's with a noyield patch and your sched_tick fix. > > > But would you say it's still _adequate_ with ccache considering you > > only have 1/6th cpu left for X? With and without ccache it's quite a > > different workload so they will behave differently. > > No, I don't think 1/6th is being left for X in the ccache case so I > think there's a bug lurking here. My memload, execload, and forkload > test cases did better even with X niced. > > To confirm, I've just run 15 instances of memload with unniced Xorg > and it performs better than make -j 5 with ccache. > > If I have some time tomorrow, I'll try to do a straight -mm1 to mm2 > comparison with different loads.
Great, thanks very much for all that. I've found a few subtle bugs in the process and some that haven't made it to the list either. I'll respin a set of patches against -mm2 with the changes shortly. Thanks! -- -ck - 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/
