From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.41 contest results
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 06:59:12 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1034110752.3da34720d9919@kolivas.net> (raw)
The original posting of this disappeared into the ether so here is another copy
for lkml.
Here follow the contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmark results up to and
including 2.5.41
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-mm2 [1] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.41 [1] 73.8 93 0 0 1.10
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-mm2 [1] 98.0 69 45 33 1.46
2.5.41 [1] 91.1 73 38 30 1.36
Proportional change here. Time longer than .40 but load also achieving more in
that time; not a real performance penalty.
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-mm2 [2] 208.0 38 12 10 3.10
2.5.41 [2] 607.5 13 47 12 9.04
Something happened here. Under heavy writing load it started choking again.
Noticeably detrimental.
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-mm2 [2] 165.1 44 38 2 2.46
2.5.41 [1] 101.6 73 30 3 1.51
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-mm2 [1] 102.7 75 7 4 1.53
2.5.41 [1] 101.1 75 7 4 1.51
Basically very similar results except for write loads being allowed to do more
to the detriment of other tasks.
Below are also the experimental loads not included in the stable release of contest:
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-mm2 [1] 188.1 39 3 7 2.80
2.5.41 [2] 138.8 53 2 8 2.07
Tar extract load seems to be doing proportionately more work than .40
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-mm2 [1] 91.9 82 1 6 1.37
2.5.41 [1] 93.3 81 1 6 1.39
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-mm2 [1] 94.3 75 1 21 1.40
2.5.41 [1] 93.6 75 1 18 1.39
Con
reply other threads:[~2002-10-08 20:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=1034110752.3da34720d9919@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--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.