[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Results: pre6 vs pre6+zlatko's_patch vs pre5 vs arcavm13
- To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@e-mind.com>
- Subject: Re: Results: pre6 vs pre6+zlatko's_patch vs pre5 vs arcavm13
- From: Steve Bergman <steve@netplus.net>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:51:47 -0600
- CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>, brent verner <damonbrent@earthlink.net>, "Garst R. Reese" <reese@isn.net>, Kalle Andersson <kalle.andersson@mbox303.swipnet.se>, Zlatko Calusic <Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr>, Ben McCann <bmccann@indusriver.com>, bredelin@ucsd.edu, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
- References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990110215759.2341A-100000@laser.bogus>
- Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> Here it is arca-vm-15 with at least this bug removed...
>
In the image test, it looks very good:
arcavm15 1:59
pre6 2:27
The best run for arcavm15 was 1:53 which which is a record for any kernel that
I've tried so far.
I'll try the low memory compile and see how it looks.
-Steve
--
This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with
the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org