From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm8 with contest
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:21:49 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200302052221.55663.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here are contest benchmarks using osdl hardware. More resolution has been
added to the io loads and read load (thanks Aggelos)
no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.59-mm7 5 78 96.2 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.59-mm8 3 79 93.7 0.0 0.0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 76 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.96
2.5.59-mm7 5 75 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.96
2.5.59-mm8 3 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.96
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 92 81.5 28.3 16.3 1.16
2.5.59-mm7 3 95 77.9 33.7 18.9 1.22
2.5.59-mm8 3 195 37.9 205.3 60.5 2.47
seems the scheduler changes have changed the balance of what work is done with
this process load. No cpu cycles are wasted so it is not necessarily a bad
result.
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 98 80.6 2.0 5.1 1.24
2.5.59-mm7 5 96 80.2 1.4 3.4 1.23
2.5.59-mm8 3 99 78.8 2.0 5.1 1.25
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 101 75.2 1.0 4.0 1.28
2.5.59-mm7 5 96 79.2 0.8 3.3 1.23
2.5.59-mm8 3 100 77.0 1.0 4.0 1.27
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 154 48.7 32.6 12.3 1.95
2.5.59-mm7 3 112 67.0 15.9 7.1 1.44
2.5.59-mm8 3 152 50.0 35.4 13.1 1.92
This seems to be creeping up to the same as 2.5.59
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 101 77.2 6.3 5.0 1.28
2.5.59-mm7 3 94 80.9 2.8 2.1 1.21
2.5.59-mm8 3 93 81.7 2.8 2.2 1.18
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 95 80.0 0.0 6.3 1.20
2.5.59-mm7 4 94 80.9 0.0 6.4 1.21
2.5.59-mm8 3 98 78.6 0.0 6.1 1.24
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 97 80.4 56.7 2.1 1.23
2.5.59-mm7 4 92 82.6 45.5 1.4 1.18
2.5.59-mm8 3 97 80.4 53.3 2.1 1.23
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 126 60.3 3.3 22.2 1.59
2.5.59-mm7 4 121 62.0 2.8 24.8 1.55
2.5.59-mm8 3 212 35.8 11.0 47.2 2.68
and this seems to be taking significantly longer
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.59 3 89 84.3 11.2 5.4 1.13
2.5.59-mm7 3 92 81.5 12.6 6.5 1.18
2.5.59-mm8 3 115 67.8 35.2 18.3 1.46
And this load which normally changes little has significantly different
results.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+QPPNF6dfvkL3i1gRAjh9AJ0VrUQBD9SbKX8jQNOtnYlwv0Ud2QCfdU+Q
k6hvNs0RWwIBc4PLSrc5eSo=
=ujgV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next reply other threads:[~2003-02-05 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-05 11:21 Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-02-05 20:37 ` [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm8 with contest Andrew Morton
2003-02-06 1:02 ` Nick Piggin
2003-02-06 8:08 ` Con Kolivas
2003-02-07 8:22 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-07 10:26 ` Con Kolivas
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=200302052221.55663.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--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).