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: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>, Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm6 with contest
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:52:14 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200301311652.47715.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)

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

Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmark results with the osdl 
hardware (http://www.osdl.org) for 2.5.59-mm6 (reconfigured hardware again to 
get most useful results with contest). These results have been checked for 
accuracy, repeatability and asterisks have been placed next to statistically 
significant differences.

I do believe these show that sequential reads are indeed scheduled before 
writes with this kernel.  The question is, how long should they be scheduled 
for?

no_load:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       79      94.9    0       0.0     1.00
2.5.59-mm6      1       78      96.2    0       0.0     1.00
cacherun:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       76      98.7    0       0.0     0.96
2.5.59-mm6      1       76      97.4    0       0.0     0.97
process_load:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       92      81.5    28      16.3    1.16
2.5.59-mm6      1       92      81.5    25      15.2    1.18
ctar_load:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       98      80.6    2       5.1     1.24*
2.5.59-mm6      3       112     70.5    2       4.5     1.44*
xtar_load:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       101     75.2    1       4.0     1.28*
2.5.59-mm6      3       115     66.1    1       4.3     1.47*
io_load:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       153     50.3    8       13.7    1.94*
2.5.59-mm6      3       106     70.8    4       9.4     1.36*
read_load:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       102     76.5    5       4.9     1.29*
2.5.59-mm6      3       733     10.8    56      6.3     9.40*
list_load:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       95      80.0    0       6.3     1.20*
2.5.59-mm6      3       97      79.4    0       6.2     1.24*
mem_load:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       97      80.4    56      2.1     1.23
2.5.59-mm6      3       94      83.0    50      2.1     1.21
dbench_load:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       126     60.3    3       22.2    1.59
2.5.59-mm6      3       122     61.5    3       25.4    1.56
io_other:
Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.59          3       89      84.3    2       5.5     1.13
2.5.59-mm6      2       90      83.3    2       6.7     1.15

io_load result is excellent showing the continuous write is delaying kernel 
compilation by much less. read_load tells the rest of the story though. 
read_load repeatedly reads a 256Mb file (the size of physical ram in the test 
machine)

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

iD8DBQE+Og8RF6dfvkL3i1gRAvLaAJ96HIePSeQ3TasNr8o19fzJGOyUUwCfTM4w
UKY8C9r2/2F5e4rrv9yOx7g=
=y8wz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

             reply	other threads:[~2003-01-31  5:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-01-31  5:52 Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-01-31  7:38 ` [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm6 with contest Andrew Morton

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=200301311652.47715.conman@kolivas.net \
    --to=conman@kolivas.net \
    --cc=akpm@digeo.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
    /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.