All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.64-mm1 with contest
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:24:55 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200303070724.55565.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)

contest results:

no_load:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              4   79      94.9    0.0     0.0     1.00
2.5.63-mm2          3   80      92.5    0.0     0.0     1.00
2.5.64              3   79      94.9    0.0     0.0     1.00
2.5.64-mm1          5   81      91.4    0.0     0.0     1.00
cacherun:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              4   76      97.4    0.0     0.0     0.96
2.5.63-mm2          3   75      98.7    0.0     0.0     0.94
2.5.64              3   75      98.7    0.0     0.0     0.95
2.5.64-mm1          5   75      98.7    0.0     0.0     0.93
process_load:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              4   92      81.5    28.2    15.2    1.16
2.5.63-mm2          3   92      80.4    29.3    16.3    1.15
2.5.64              3   92      81.5    30.0    16.3    1.16
2.5.64-mm1          5   94      78.7    30.2    18.1    1.16
ctar_load:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              3   99      79.8    1.0     4.0     1.25
2.5.63-mm2          3   112     70.5    1.0     6.2     1.40
2.5.64              3   100     79.0    0.0     0.0     1.27
2.5.64-mm1          5   114     69.3    0.8     4.4     1.41
xtar_load:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              3   102     74.5    1.0     3.9     1.29
2.5.63-mm2          3   108     70.4    1.0     4.6     1.35
2.5.64              3   103     73.8    1.0     3.9     1.30
2.5.64-mm1          5   112     67.9    1.0     4.5     1.38
io_load:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              5   217     35.0    56.7    15.1    2.75
2.5.63-mm2          3   99      75.8    15.1    7.1     1.24
2.5.64              3   229     33.2    58.8    14.8    2.90
2.5.64-mm1          5   97      77.3    13.6    6.2     1.20
io_other:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              4   95      78.9    15.3    8.3     1.20
2.5.63-mm2          3   92      80.4    13.2    6.5     1.15
2.5.64              3   100     75.0    18.4    9.0     1.27
2.5.64-mm1          5   93      80.6    13.7    7.5     1.15
read_load:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              3   106     74.5    5.7     4.7     1.34
2.5.63-mm2          3   121     64.5    8.4     5.8     1.51
2.5.64              3   103     76.7    6.2     4.9     1.30
2.5.64-mm1          5   115     68.7    8.2     6.1     1.42
list_load:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              3   96      79.2    0.0     6.2     1.22
2.5.63-mm2          3   99      76.8    0.0     6.1     1.24
2.5.64              3   96      79.2    0.0     6.2     1.22
2.5.64-mm1          5   100     76.0    0.0     7.0     1.23
mem_load:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              3   104     75.0    57.7    1.9     1.32
2.5.63-mm2          3   132     59.1    90.3    2.3     1.65
2.5.64              3   105     74.3    58.3    1.9     1.33
2.5.64-mm1          5   111     70.3    63.2    1.8     1.37
dbench_load:
Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.63              4   194     39.2    2.0     38.7    2.46
2.5.63-mm2          3   236     32.2    2.7     43.2    2.95
2.5.64              3   222     34.2    2.3     38.7    2.81
2.5.64-mm1          5   231     32.9    2.6     42.0    2.85

Compared with 2.5.63-mm2 hardly any difference. Slightly better read load, 
slightly longer tar loads; the climbing mem_load problem has gone away...?

Con

                 reply	other threads:[~2003-03-06 20:14 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=200303070724.55565.kernel@kolivas.org \
    --to=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --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.