* [BENCHMARK] 2.5.65-mm2 with contest
@ 2003-03-19 23:16 Con Kolivas
2003-03-20 0:58 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2003-03-19 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux kernel mailing list; +Cc: Andrew Morton
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Contest results for mm2:
no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 80 95.0 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.65-mm1 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.65-mm2 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 76 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.95
2.5.65-mm1 3 76 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.96
2.5.65-mm2 3 76 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.96
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 243 30.5 317.0 68.3 3.04
2.5.65-mm1 3 241 30.7 309.7 67.6 3.05
2.5.65-mm2 3 240 30.8 300.7 67.5 3.04
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 108 72.2 0.0 0.0 1.35
2.5.65-mm1 3 113 69.9 1.0 6.2 1.43
2.5.65-mm2 3 108 74.1 1.0 6.5 1.37
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 106 71.7 1.0 3.8 1.32
2.5.65-mm1 3 110 70.0 1.0 4.5 1.39
2.5.65-mm2 3 104 74.0 1.0 4.8 1.32
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 411 19.0 137.5 20.4 5.14
2.5.65-mm1 3 139 56.1 49.4 20.9 1.76
2.5.65-mm2 3 136 57.4 49.7 21.3 1.72
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 164 47.6 71.7 26.2 2.05
2.5.65-mm1 3 134 58.2 60.4 27.6 1.70
2.5.65-mm2 3 138 56.5 62.3 26.6 1.75
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 107 72.9 6.3 4.7 1.34
2.5.65-mm1 3 124 62.9 9.5 6.5 1.57
2.5.65-mm2 3 127 62.2 9.8 6.3 1.61
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 98 78.6 0.0 7.1 1.23
2.5.65-mm1 3 97 79.4 0.0 7.2 1.23
2.5.65-mm2 3 98 78.6 0.0 8.2 1.24
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 112 70.5 67.3 2.7 1.40
2.5.65-mm1 3 103 76.7 53.3 1.9 1.30
2.5.65-mm2 3 103 76.7 53.7 1.9 1.30
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.65 3 542 14.2 9.0 62.5 6.78
2.5.65-mm1 3 361 21.1 6.3 55.4 4.57
2.5.65-mm2 3 437 17.4 7.7 60.6 5.53
Slight changes in io based loads due to the latest anticipatory scheduler
tweaks are evident.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+ePpWF6dfvkL3i1gRAmOEAJ438vVrHQolL0ZB4brHJSAGqbQ5yQCeOJ14
OPUEpbvv9oI60LrpOAwR8UA=
=YCqW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.65-mm2 with contest
2003-03-19 23:16 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.65-mm2 with contest Con Kolivas
@ 2003-03-20 0:58 ` Nick Piggin
2003-03-20 1:37 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-03-20 0:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Con Kolivas; +Cc: linux kernel mailing list, Andrew Morton
Con Kolivas wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Contest results for mm2:
>
Contest is starting to look good. Especially in
loads and lcpu.
>
>
>no_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.65 3 80 95.0 0.0 0.0 1.00
>2.5.65-mm1 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
>2.5.65-mm2 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
>
AS is now on par with deadline here which is nice.
[snip]
>dbench_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.65 3 542 14.2 9.0 62.5 6.78
>2.5.65-mm1 3 361 21.1 6.3 55.4 4.57
>2.5.65-mm2 3 437 17.4 7.7 60.6 5.53
>
I don't know if this is a good balance shift or not. Maybe not
related to AS but I'll investigate.
>
>
>Slight changes in io based loads due to the latest anticipatory scheduler
>tweaks are evident.
>
>Con
>
Thanks Con
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.65-mm2 with contest
2003-03-20 0:58 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2003-03-20 1:37 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2003-03-20 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin; +Cc: linux kernel mailing list, Andrew Morton
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:58, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >Contest results for mm2:
>
> Contest is starting to look good. Especially in
> loads and lcpu.
Very good point. Some of the loads are exhibiting better overall cpu usage and
dropping the compile time (tar loads are a good example)
> >no_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.65 3 80 95.0 0.0 0.0 1.00
> >2.5.65-mm1 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
> >2.5.65-mm2 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
>
> AS is now on par with deadline here which is nice.
Excellent.
> [snip]
>
> >dbench_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.65 3 542 14.2 9.0 62.5 6.78
> >2.5.65-mm1 3 361 21.1 6.3 55.4 4.57
> >2.5.65-mm2 3 437 17.4 7.7 60.6 5.53
>
> I don't know if this is a good balance shift or not. Maybe not
> related to AS but I'll investigate.
I dont think there are other tweaks in mm2 that could be responsible. It's
extremely hard to know what exactly is the best balance in this load. If
dbench 16 should get 80% of the total cpu usage (since the kernel compile has
4 processes) then mm2 is very close at 78%. However I didnt think dbench was
supposed to be a particularly cpu bound task. The overall cpu usage is higher
which is good though.
> Thanks Con
A pleasure,
Con
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-03-20 1:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-03-19 23:16 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.65-mm2 with contest Con Kolivas
2003-03-20 0:58 ` Nick Piggin
2003-03-20 1:37 ` Con Kolivas
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.