All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: anticipatory scheduling questions
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:24:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030227222440.14610.qmail@linuxmail.org> (raw)

Hello, 
 
I have just installed 2.5.63-mm1 on my system and have been performing a very simple benchmarks. Here are 
my first results when compared against a RedHat 2.4.20-2.54 kernel: 
 
(All times expressed as total times) 
 
1. time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/p bs=1024k count=256 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m12.737s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m17.704s 
 
2. time cp /tmp/p /tmp/q 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m41.108s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m51.939s 
 
3. time cmp /tmp/p /tmp/q 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 1m7.349s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m58.966s 
 
4. time cmp /dev/zero /tmp/q 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m17.965s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m14.038s 
 
The question is, why, apparently, is anticipatory scheduling perfomring worse than 2.4.20? Indeed, this can be 
tested interactively with an application like Evolution: I have configured Evolution to use 2 dictionaries (English 
and Spanish) for spell checking in e-mail messages. When running 2.4.20, if I choose to reply to a large 
message, it only takes a few seconds to read both dictionaries from disk and perform the spell checking. 
However, on 2.5.63-mm1 the same process takes considerably longer. Any reason for this? 
 
Thanks! 
 
Best regards, 
 
   Felipe Alfaro Solana 
 
-- 
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr

Powered by Outblaze

             reply	other threads:[~2003-02-27 22:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-27 22:24 Felipe Alfaro Solana [this message]
2003-02-27 23:26 ` anticipatory scheduling questions Andrew Morton
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-28 12:18 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-28 12:44 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-28 14:38 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-28 19:14 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-28 23:12 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-28 23:16 ` Andrew Morton
2003-03-01 10:25 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-03-01 10:40 ` Andrew Morton
2003-03-01 11:51   ` David Lang
2003-03-01 17:15     ` Alan Cox
     [not found] <fa.g5ol5kg.cgoq0g@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.hp882fv.1u0orj9@ifi.uio.no>
2003-03-01 12:48   ` Ed Tomlinson
2003-03-01 14:48 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-03-02 11:40 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-03-02 20:43 ` Andrew Morton
2003-03-02 21:50 Felipe Alfaro Solana

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=20030227222440.14610.qmail@linuxmail.org \
    --to=felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org \
    --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.