All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] scheduler tunables with contest - max_sleep_average
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:14:17 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200212192014.25201.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Here are a set of contest results for 2.5.52-mm1 with max_sleep_average 
scheduler settings (default is 2000) using the osdl hardware 
(http://www.osdl.org)

noload:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [8]          39.7    180     0       0       1.10
max_sle1000 [3]         40.0    179     0       0       1.10
max_sle4000 [4]         39.7    180     0       0       1.10
max_sle500 [3]          39.6    180     0       0       1.09

cacherun:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [7]          36.9    194     0       0       1.02
max_sle1000 [3]         36.8    194     0       0       1.02
max_sle4000 [4]         36.6    194     0       0       1.01
max_sle500 [3]          36.7    194     0       0       1.01

process_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [7]          49.0    144     10      50      1.35
max_sle1000 [3]         52.8    133     14      61      1.46
max_sle4000 [4]         46.5    154     8       39      1.28
max_sle500 [3]          48.1    150     9       44      1.33

ctar_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [7]          55.5    156     1       10      1.53
max_sle1000 [3]         53.2    161     1       10      1.47
max_sle4000 [4]         51.7    159     1       9       1.43
max_sle500 [3]          54.7    161     1       10      1.51

xtar_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [7]          77.4    122     1       8       2.14
max_sle1000 [3]         82.6    117     1       9       2.28
max_sle4000 [3]         66.0    127     1       8       1.82
max_sle500 [3]          67.0    131     1       8       1.85

io_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [7]          80.5    108     10      19      2.22
max_sle1000 [3]         89.9    94      14      21      2.48
max_sle4000 [3]         65.2    121     8       18      1.80
max_sle500 [3]          77.4    110     11      21      2.14

io_other:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [7]          60.1    131     7       18      1.66
max_sle1000 [3]         66.3    127     9       20      1.83
max_sle4000 [3]         80.0    111     10      20      2.21
max_sle500 [3]          106.6   101     19      25      2.94

read_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [7]          49.9    149     5       6       1.38
max_sle1000 [3]         50.2    148     5       6       1.39
max_sle4000 [3]         50.4    149     5       6       1.39
max_sle500 [3]          50.1    148     5       6       1.38

list_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [7]          43.8    167     0       9       1.21
max_sle1000 [3]         43.7    167     0       9       1.21
max_sle4000 [3]         43.6    167     0       9       1.20
max_sle500 [3]          44.1    167     0       9       1.22

mem_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.52-mm1 [7]          71.1    123     36      2       1.96
max_sle1000 [3]         103.3   81      36      2       2.85
max_sle4000 [3]         104.4   79      36      2       2.88
max_sle500 [3]          101.3   76      35      2       2.80

Pretty weird. No clear relationship with changes here except perhaps a 
proportional (small) change in ctar_load.

Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+AY3qF6dfvkL3i1gRAj1sAKCf80vYSSfEjl9SI3WFSOZE1HV6cgCggFgj
tivVtTQa/1wiytrsNyNAjow=
=rd8R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

                 reply	other threads:[~2002-12-19  9:04 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=200212192014.25201.conman@kolivas.net \
    --to=conman@kolivas.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rml@tech9.net \
    /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.