From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@linuxpower.ca>, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 100Hz preempt v nopreempt contest results
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 16:39:15 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200306031639.49515.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here are contest results on the same kernel 2.5.70-mm3 set to 100Hz with
(2.5.70-mm31) and without (2.5.70-mm3n) preempt.
no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 1 77 94.8 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.70-mm3n 1 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 1 74 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.96
2.5.70-mm3n 1 76 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.96
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 107 69.2 67.0 29.0 1.39
2.5.70-mm3n 2 137 53.3 133.5 45.3 1.73
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 3 105 73.3 0.7 3.8 1.36
2.5.70-mm3n 3 105 73.3 0.7 3.8 1.33
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 3 122 61.5 2.0 4.9 1.58
2.5.70-mm3n 3 113 65.5 2.0 4.4 1.43
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 4 114 65.8 41.0 19.3 1.48
2.5.70-mm3n 4 112 67.0 41.1 18.8 1.42
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 112 67.9 46.1 21.4 1.45
2.5.70-mm3n 2 112 67.0 46.0 20.4 1.42
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 100 76.0 7.5 7.0 1.30
2.5.70-mm3n 2 101 75.2 7.6 5.9 1.28
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 92 82.6 0.0 5.4 1.19
2.5.70-mm3n 2 94 79.8 0.0 6.4 1.19
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 95 81.1 53.0 2.1 1.23
2.5.70-mm3n 2 94 80.9 52.0 2.1 1.19
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 4 297 24.9 4.5 52.5 3.86
2.5.70-mm3n 4 292 25.7 4.5 52.4 3.70
Note this time the ratio is less useful since they are both 100Hz. The
difference this time shows a large preempt improvement in process_load much
like 1000Hz did. Interestingly, even unloaded kernels no_load and cache_load
runs are faster with preempt. Only in xtar_load (repeatedly extracting a tar
with multiple small files) was no preempt faster.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+3EKfF6dfvkL3i1gRAjFpAKCpeVUOpCXd1xHrKYhEkeOYhuD1swCgmyRQ
NBf56mnwS02WY9wJ9FHctg0=
=cLte
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next reply other threads:[~2003-06-03 6:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-03 6:39 Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-06-03 17:05 ` [BENCHMARK] 100Hz preempt v nopreempt contest results Robert Love
2003-06-03 17:24 ` William Lee Irwin III
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=200306031639.49515.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=zwane@linuxpower.ca \
/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).