From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.52-mm2 with contest
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:22:25 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200212202022.30960.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks using the osdl
(http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.52-mm2 in both UniProcessor and SMP
mode:
For the uniprocessor results you need your filter glasses on to compare 2.5.52
with the -mm results as the baseline changed for compicated reasons. So apart
from the trend, you can only compare the absolute results between mm1 and
mm2.
UP:
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 70.2 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 74.7 96 0 0 1.12
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 74.6 96 0 0 1.12
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 67.5 99 0 0 1.01
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 71.9 99 0 0 1.08
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 72.0 99 0 0 1.08
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 84.4 79 17 19 1.26
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 91.0 79 18 19 1.36
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 90.3 79 18 19 1.35
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 222.3 36 2 53 3.33
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 226.4 37 2 51 3.39
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 229.6 36 2 50 3.44
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 109.8 81 2 8 1.64
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 112.2 81 3 9 1.68
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 109.6 81 2 9 1.64
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 161.4 69 3 8 2.42
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 127.9 70 2 7 1.92
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 125.0 70 2 7 1.87
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 120.9 60 13 12 1.81
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 143.9 55 18 13 2.16
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 129.3 61 14 12 1.94
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 94.9 76 7 10 1.42
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 115.5 67 11 11 1.73
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 93.3 79 7 9 1.40
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 88.1 80 15 7 1.32
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 97.0 78 15 6 1.45
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 93.6 80 15 6 1.40
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 81.0 86 0 9 1.21
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 86.8 85 0 9 1.30
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 86.3 85 0 9 1.29
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 100.0 78 45 2 1.50
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 117.5 69 45 1 1.76
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 108.0 77 46 2 1.62
SMP:
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 39.3 181 0 0 1.09
2.5.52-mm1 [8] 39.7 180 0 0 1.10
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 39.2 181 0 0 1.08
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 36.5 194 0 0 1.01
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 36.9 194 0 0 1.02
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 36.5 194 0 0 1.01
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 48.7 144 10 49 1.34
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 49.0 144 10 50 1.35
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 46.5 152 8 41 1.28
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 56.1 161 1 10 1.55
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 55.5 156 1 10 1.53
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 52.8 154 1 10 1.46
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 83.1 138 1 9 2.29
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 77.4 122 1 8 2.14
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 76.1 124 1 8 2.10
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 73.1 111 10 19 2.02
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 80.5 108 10 19 2.22
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 74.5 112 11 20 2.06
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 75.1 120 10 21 2.07
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 60.1 131 7 18 1.66
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 59.9 134 6 18 1.65
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 49.4 151 5 7 1.36
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 49.9 149 5 6 1.38
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 50.5 147 5 6 1.39
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 43.2 167 0 9 1.19
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 43.8 167 0 9 1.21
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 43.7 167 0 9 1.21
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 63.5 148 38 3 1.75
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 71.1 123 36 2 1.96
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 66.0 141 39 3 1.82
Slight shift in the balance in both SMP and UP results towards lower times for
io_load, io_other and mem_load. Note also the interesting rise in mem_loads
done despite the shorter time (a marked improvement therefore).
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+AuFSF6dfvkL3i1gRAosVAJ0VgSaPJurexvoCR7wRnA1+wJtWLwCgqu9u
OKFw2P3E8MHYPMfAhWyKEyQ=
=6+VY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
reply other threads:[~2002-12-20 9:12 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=200212202022.30960.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--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.