From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:52:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:52:56 -0400 Received: from c17928.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.249.29]:896 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 06:52:55 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Con Kolivas To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.43-mm2 with contest Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:56:38 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: linux kernel mailing list References: <1034840438.3dae6976a93fb@kolivas.net> <3DAE6E63.EFAF0F80@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <3DAE6E63.EFAF0F80@digeo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200210172056.45002.conman@kolivas.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 17 Oct 2002 6:01 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > Here are the updated benchmarks with contest v0.51 > > (http://contest.kolivas.net) showing the change from -mm1 to -mm2. Other > > results removed for clarity. > > > > noload: > > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > > 2.4.18 [3] 71.8 93 0 0 1.01 > > 2.5.43 [2] 74.6 92 0 0 1.04 > > 2.5.43-mm1 [4] 74.9 93 0 0 1.05 > > 2.5.43-mm2 [2] 73.4 93 0 0 1.03 > > Would be interesting to run > > blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/hdXX > > here. We're getting more idle time with 2.5 and that can only > be due to disk wait - the IO scheduler changes. This might make a > small difference. Well that isn't it (b is with ra 1024): 2.5.43-mm2 [2] 73.4 93 0 0 1.03 2.5.43-mm2b [3] 76.4 94 0 0 1.07 > > > ... > > Removal of per-cpu pages patch does not seem to have been detrimental to > > contest benchmarks at least - perhaps this is responsible for the noload > > being better now? > > Well that code is still there. I'd expect a very small benefit from it > in this testing. Sorry. Misunderstood your announce message. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9rpdrF6dfvkL3i1gRAu5AAJ9B3LJ3kuplNHdhJGsW785CJ2i4GgCfRs9W d2BW4cSQaanL/FjJTu3gU9k= =+Foh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----