From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Benchmark] Contest 0.51
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 07:18:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021012231841.8863.qmail@linuxmail.org> (raw)
Hi all,
here the contest results:
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 128.8 97 0 0 1.01
2.5.40 [3] 134.4 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.40-nopree [3] 133.7 96 0 0 1.04
2.5.41 [3] 136.5 96 0 0 1.07
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 134.8 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.42 [3] 134.8 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 135.5 96 0 0 1.06
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 194.1 60 134 40 1.52
2.5.40 [3] 184.5 70 53 31 1.44
2.5.40-nopree [3] 286.4 45 163 55 2.24
2.5.41 [3] 192.6 68 59 32 1.50
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 193.4 66 68 34 1.51
2.5.42 [3] 187.6 68 58 32 1.46
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 186.0 69 60 31 1.45
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 461.0 28 46 8 3.60
2.5.40 [3] 293.6 45 25 8 2.29
2.5.40-nopree [3] 269.4 50 20 7 2.10
2.5.41 [3] 342.7 41 34 9 2.68
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 251.1 54 21 8 1.96
2.5.42 [3] 304.5 45 28 9 2.38
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 254.6 53 20 8 1.99
It seems useful to me add a colum with CPU%+LCPU%.
It is intersting to notice that 2.5.41 spend 41+9=50% CPU time
for compiling and for the io_load while 2.5.42 spend 45+9=54%
time. Can I say that 2.5.42 is "better" than 2.5.41 ?
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.42 [3] 162.3 82 10 4 1.27
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 162.5 82 10 4 1.27
No difference here.
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.42 [3] 154.2 85 0 6 1.20
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 155.1 85 0 6 1.21
No difference here.
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 161.1 80 38 2 1.26
2.5.40 [3] 163.0 80 34 2 1.27
2.5.40-nopree [3] 161.7 80 34 2 1.26
2.5.41 [3] 161.0 83 33 2 1.26
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 229.9 57 35 1 1.80
2.5.42 [3] 157.9 83 33 2 1.23
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 162.2 81 33 2 1.27
No difference here.
Comments ?
Paolo
--
Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org
Powered by Outblaze
next reply other threads:[~2002-10-12 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-12 23:18 Paolo Ciarrocchi [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-12 23:49 [Benchmark] Contest 0.51 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=20021012231841.8863.qmail@linuxmail.org \
--to=ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org \
--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.