From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
marcelo@conectiva.com.br, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
Marcelo <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.{18,19{-ck9},20rc1{-aa1}} with contest
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:26:17 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200211111526.56782.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021110100942.GG31134@suse.de>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>On Sun, Nov 10 2002, Con Kolivas wrote:
>> io_load:
>> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>> 2420rc1r0 [3] 489.3 15 36 10 6.85
>> 2420rc1r8 [3] 485.5 15 35 10 6.80
>> 2420rc1r16 [3] 570.4 12 43 10 7.99
>> 2420rc1r32 [3] 570.1 12 42 10 7.98
>> 2420rc1r64 [3] 575.0 12 43 10 8.05
>> 2420rc1r128 [3] 611.4 11 46 10 8.56
>> 2420rc1r256 [3] 646.2 11 49 10 9.05
>> 2420rc1r512 [3] 603.7 12 45 10 8.46
>> 2420rc1r1024 [3] 693.9 10 53 10 9.72
>> 2.4.20-rc1 [2] 1142.2 6 90 10 16.00
>>
>> Test hardware is 1133Mhz P3 laptop with 5400rpm ATA100 drive. I don't
>> doubt the response curve would be different for other hardware.
>
>That looks pretty good, the behaviour in 2.4.20-rc1 is no sanely tunable
>unlike before. Could you retest the whole contest suite with 512 as the
>default value? It looks like a good default for 2.4.20.
Ok here they are:
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [5] 71.7 93 0 0 1.00
2.4.19 [5] 69.0 97 0 0 0.97
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 72.2 93 0 0 1.01
2420rc1r512 [3] 71.6 93 0 0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [2] 66.6 99 0 0 0.93
2.4.19 [2] 68.0 99 0 0 0.95
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 67.2 99 0 0 0.94
2420rc1r512 [3] 67.1 99 0 0 0.94
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 109.5 57 119 44 1.53
2.4.19 [3] 106.5 59 112 43 1.49
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 110.7 58 119 43 1.55
2420rc1r512 [3] 112.1 57 122 43 1.57
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 117.4 63 1 7 1.64
2.4.19 [2] 106.5 70 1 8 1.49
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 102.1 72 1 7 1.43
2420rc1r512 [3] 101.7 73 1 8 1.42
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 150.8 49 2 8 2.11
2.4.19 [1] 132.4 55 2 9 1.85
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 180.7 40 3 8 2.53
2420rc1r512 [3] 170.0 44 3 7 2.38
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 474.1 15 36 10 6.64
2.4.19 [3] 492.6 14 38 10 6.90
2.4.20-rc1 [2] 1142.2 6 90 10 16.00
2420rc1r512 [6] 602.7 12 45 10 8.44
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 102.3 70 6 3 1.43
2.4.19 [2] 134.1 54 14 5 1.88
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 173.2 43 20 5 2.43
2420rc1r512 [3] 112.5 67 11 5 1.58
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 90.2 76 1 17 1.26
2.4.19 [1] 89.8 77 1 20 1.26
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 88.8 77 0 12 1.24
2420rc1r512 [3] 88.0 78 0 12 1.23
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 103.3 70 32 3 1.45
2.4.19 [3] 100.0 72 33 3 1.40
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 105.9 69 32 2 1.48
2420rc1r512 [3] 105.0 70 33 3 1.47
Looks good. Note that read_load is a lot "better" too.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9zzFtF6dfvkL3i1gRAvQ/AJ0UK7za0Uvy6SnyPxFoYEjcX2iGDACcCWfx
WRq8eTboTj6bRCzERw/gMfo=
=kSMm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-11 4:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-09 2:00 [BENCHMARK] 2.4.{18,19{-ck9},20rc1{-aa1}} with contest Con Kolivas
2002-11-09 2:36 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-09 3:26 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-09 4:15 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-09 5:12 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-09 11:21 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-09 13:09 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-09 13:35 ` Stephen Lord
2002-11-09 13:54 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-09 21:12 ` Arador
2002-11-10 2:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-09 21:53 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-10 10:09 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-10 16:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 4:26 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-11-10 10:12 ` Kjartan Maraas
2002-11-10 10:17 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-10 16:27 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-09 11:20 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-10 2:44 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 3:56 ` Matt Reppert
2002-11-10 9:58 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-10 10:06 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-10 16:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 16:20 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 19:32 ` Rik van Riel
2002-11-10 20:10 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 20:52 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-10 21:05 ` Rik van Riel
2002-11-11 1:54 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 4:03 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-11 4:06 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 4:22 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-11 4:39 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 5:10 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-11 5:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 7:58 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-11-11 13:56 ` Rik van Riel
2002-11-11 13:45 ` Rik van Riel
2002-11-11 14:09 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-11 15:48 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 15:43 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 20:56 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-11 1:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-11-09 3:44 Dieter Nützel
2002-11-09 3:54 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-09 4:02 ` Dieter Nützel
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=200211111526.56782.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo@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 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.