From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39 with contest 0.41
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 19:17:28 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1033204648.3d9573a81bfa9@kolivas.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020928090806.GI23468@suse.de>
Quoting Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>:
> On Sat, Sep 28 2002, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > io_load:
> > > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> > > > 2.4.19 216.05 33% 3.19
> > > > 2.5.38 887.76 8% 13.11*
> > > > 2.5.38-mm3 105.17 70% 1.55*
> > > > 2.5.39 216.81 37% 3.20
> > >
> > > -mm3 has fifo_batch=16. 2.5.39 has fifo_batch=32.
>
> That's not the only difference, btw.
>
> > > > mem_load:
> > > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> > > > 2.4.19 105.40 70% 1.56
> > > > 2.5.38 107.89 73% 1.59
> > > > 2.5.38-mm3 117.09 63% 1.73*
> > > > 2.5.39 103.72 72% 1.53
> > >
> > > 2.5's swapout is still fairly synchronously sucky. So low-latency
> > > writeout could be advantageous there. This difference is probably
> > > also the fifo_batch thing. Or maybe statistical?
> > >
> > >
> > > I did some testing with your latest. 4xPIII, mem=512m, SCSI,
> > > tag depth = 0, 2.5.39-mm1 candidate:
> > >
> > > fifo_batch=32:
> > >
> > > noload 2:34.53 291%
> > > cpuload 2:36.20 286%
> > > memload 2:19.44 333%
> > > ioloadhalf 2:34.81 303%
> > > ioloadfull 3:15.47 238%
> > >
> > > (err. memload sped it up!)
> > >
> > > fifo_batch=16:
> > >
> > > noload 2:00.03 380%
> > > cpuload 2:27.62 304%
> > > memload 2:22.59 326%
> > > ioloadhalf 2:33.75 306%
> > > ioloadfull 2:59.18 259%
> > >
> > > - Something went horridly wrong in the first `noload' test.
> > > - fifo_batch=16 is better than 32.
> > > - you see a 4x hit from io_load. I see a 1.5x hit.
>
> So far fifo_batch=16 looks pretty good. Doesn't quite make sense to me.
> Need to bench/test some more :-)
Andrew was using an older version of contest which may have been misrepresenting
things as there were serious limitations in the older versions.
I've directed him to the new version which has worked around (most) of the
limitations. SMP on the older version was particularly bad.
Con.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-28 9:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-28 6:58 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39 with contest 0.41 Con Kolivas
2002-09-28 8:23 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-28 8:31 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-28 8:45 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-28 9:08 ` Jens Axboe
2002-09-28 9:17 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-09-28 15:17 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-09-28 23:59 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-29 9:00 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-09-29 9:17 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-29 17:14 Paolo Ciarrocchi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1033204648.3d9573a81bfa9@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).