From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.40-mm2 with contest
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:21:42 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1033960902.3da0fdc6839aa@kolivas.net> (raw)
Here are the latest results including 2.5.40-mm2 with contest v0.50
(http://contest.kolivas.net)
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 67.7 98 0 0 1.01
2.5.38 [3] 72.0 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.39 [2] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.40 [1] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08
2.5.40-mm1 [1] 72.9 93 0 0 1.09
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 106.5 59 112 43 1.59
2.5.38 [3] 89.5 74 34 28 1.33
2.5.39 [2] 91.2 73 36 28 1.36
2.5.40 [2] 82.8 80 25 23 1.23
2.5.40-mm1 [2] 86.9 77 30 25 1.29
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 98.0 69 45 33 1.46
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 492.6 14 38 10 7.33
2.5.38 [1] 4000.0 1 500 1 59.55
2.5.39 [2] 423.9 18 30 11 6.31
2.5.40 [1] 315.7 25 22 10 4.70
2.5.40-mm1 [1] 326.2 24 23 11 4.86
2.5.40-mm2 [2] 208.0 38 12 10 3.10
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 100.0 72 33 3 1.49
2.5.38 [3] 107.3 70 34 3 1.60
2.5.39 [2] 103.1 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.40 [2] 102.5 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.40-mm1 [2] 107.7 68 29 2 1.60
2.5.40-mm2 [2] 165.1 44 38 2 2.46
Well something happened here. The tuning under IO load has relaxed the
pressure even more to allow kernel compilation to proceed. Mem load seems to
have changed dramatically though with a disproportionately long increase in
kernel compilation time given only a modest increase in the amount of work
done by mem load. Process_load seems proportionately longer than mm1 with an
appropriate rise in load work done.
Below are also the experimental results with the newer loads:
tarc_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [2] 106.5 70 1 8 1.59
2.5.38 [1] 97.2 79 1 6 1.45
2.5.39 [1] 91.8 83 1 6 1.37
2.5.40 [1] 96.9 80 1 6 1.44
2.5.40-mm1 [1] 94.4 81 1 6 1.41
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 91.9 82 1 6 1.37
tarx_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [1] 132.4 55 2 9 1.97
2.5.38 [1] 120.5 63 2 8 1.79
2.5.39 [1] 108.3 69 1 6 1.61
2.5.40 [1] 110.7 68 1 6 1.65
2.5.40-mm1 [1] 191.5 39 3 7 2.85
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 188.1 39 3 7 2.80
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [2] 134.1 54 14 5 2.00
2.5.38 [2] 100.5 76 9 5 1.50
2.5.39 [2] 101.3 74 14 6 1.51
2.5.40 [1] 101.5 73 13 5 1.51
2.5.40-mm1 [1] 104.5 74 9 5 1.56
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 102.7 75 7 4 1.53
lslr_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [1] 89.8 77 1 20 1.34
2.5.38 [1] 99.1 71 1 20 1.48
2.5.39 [1] 101.3 70 2 24 1.51
2.5.40 [1] 97.0 72 1 21 1.44
2.5.40-mm1 [1] 96.6 73 1 22 1.44
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 94.3 75 1 21 1.40
These do not appear significantly different.
Con
next reply other threads:[~2002-10-07 3:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-07 3:21 Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-10-07 7:38 ` [BENCHMARK] 2.5.40-mm2 with contest Andrew Morton
2002-10-08 1:01 ` Con Kolivas
2002-10-08 1:25 ` Andrew Morton
2002-10-08 1:41 ` Con Kolivas
2002-10-10 17:40 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-10-10 23:17 ` Con Kolivas
2002-10-10 17:32 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-10-10 18:11 ` Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-07 12:11 Ed Tomlinson
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=1033960902.3da0fdc6839aa@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.