From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:00:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:00:36 -0500 Received: from mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.20.173]:4564 "EHLO mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:00:34 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Con Kolivas To: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm7 with contest Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 12:09:49 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: Andrew Morton , linux kernel mailing list , Aggelos Economopoulos References: <200302010930.54538.conman@kolivas.net> <200302011144.54554.conman@kolivas.net> <3E3B1B1E.7050800@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3E3B1B1E.7050800@cyberone.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200302011209.49692.conman@kolivas.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 11:55 am, Nick Piggin wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > >On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 11:37 am, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Con Kolivas wrote: > >>>Seems the fix for "reads starves everything" works. Affected the tar > >>> loads too? > >> > >>Yes, at the cost of throughput, however for now it is probably > >>the best way to go. Hopefully anticipatory scheduling will provide > >>as good or better kernel compile times and better throughput. > >> > >>Con, tell me, are "Loads" normalised to the time they run for? > >>Is it possible to get a finer grain result for the load tests? > > > >No, the load is the absolute number of times the load successfully > > completed. We battled with the code for a while to see if there were ways > > to get more accurate load numbers but if you write a 256Mb file you can > > only tell if it completes the write or not; not how much has been written > > when you stop the write. Same goes with read etc. The load rate is a more > > meaningful number but we haven't gotten around to implementing that in > > the result presentation. > > I don't know how the contest code works, but if you split that into > a number of smaller writes it should work? Yes it would but the load effect is significantly diminished. By writing a file the size==physical ram the load effect is substantial. > >Load rate would be: > > > >loads / ( load_compile_time - no_load_compile_time ) > > I think loads / time_load_ran_for should be ok (ie, give you loads per time > interval). This would be more useful if your loads were getting more > efficient > or less because it is possible that an improvement would lower compile time > _and_ loads, but overall the loads were getting done quicker. I found the following is how loads occur almost always: noload time: 60 load time kernal a: 80, loads 20 load time kernel b: 100, loads 40 load time kernel c: 90, loads 30 and loads/total time wouldnt show this effect as kernel c would appear to have a better load rate if there was load time kernel d: 80, loads 40 that would be more significant no?