From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@conectiva.com.br
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] contest results for 2.5.36
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:41:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D88ACB6.6374E014@digeo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1032360386.3d8891c2bc3d3@kolivas.net
Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> Here are the latest results with 2.5.36 compared with 2.5.34
>
> No Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 68.14 99%
> 2.4.20-pre7 68.11 99%
> 2.5.34 69.88 99%
> 2.4.19-ck7 68.40 98%
> 2.4.19-ck7-rmap 68.73 99%
> 2.4.19-cc 68.37 99%
> 2.5.36 69.58 99%
page_add/remove_rmap. Be interesting to test an Alan kernel too.
> Process Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 81.10 80%
> 2.4.20-pre7 81.92 80%
> 2.5.34 71.39 94%
> 2.5.36 71.80 94%
Ingo ;)
> Mem Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 92.49 77%
> 2.4.20-pre7 92.25 77%
> 2.5.34 138.05 54%
> 2.5.36 132.45 56%
The swapping fix in -mm1 may help here.
> IO Halfmem Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 99.41 70%
> 2.4.20-pre7 99.42 71%
> 2.5.34 74.31 93%
> 2.5.36 94.82 76%
Don't know. Was this with IO load against the same disk as
the one on which the kernel was being compiled, or a different
one? This is a very important factor - one way we're testing the
VM and the other way we're testing the IO scheduler.
> IO Fullmem Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 173.00 41%
> 2.4.20-pre7 146.38 48%
> 2.5.34 74.00 94%
> 2.5.36 87.57 81%
If the IO load was against the same disk 2.5 _should_ have sucked,
due to the writes-starves-reads problem which we're working on. So
I assume it was against a different disk. In which case 2.5 should not
have shown these improvements, because all the fixes for this are still
in -mm. hm. Helpful, aren't I?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-18 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-18 14:46 [BENCHMARK] contest results for 2.5.36 Con Kolivas
2002-09-18 16:41 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-09-18 16:50 ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-19 8:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-19 8:14 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-18 21:17 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-18 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-18 23:55 ` NMI watchdog stability Jonathan Lundell
2002-09-19 12:07 ` John Levon
2002-09-19 13:20 ` Richard B. Johnson
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=3D88ACB6.6374E014@digeo.com \
--to=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
/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).