From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@linuxpower.ca>, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 100Hz preempt v nopreempt contest results
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 16:39:15 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200306031639.49515.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here are contest results on the same kernel 2.5.70-mm3 set to 100Hz with
(2.5.70-mm31) and without (2.5.70-mm3n) preempt.
no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 1 77 94.8 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.70-mm3n 1 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 1 74 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.96
2.5.70-mm3n 1 76 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.96
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 107 69.2 67.0 29.0 1.39
2.5.70-mm3n 2 137 53.3 133.5 45.3 1.73
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 3 105 73.3 0.7 3.8 1.36
2.5.70-mm3n 3 105 73.3 0.7 3.8 1.33
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 3 122 61.5 2.0 4.9 1.58
2.5.70-mm3n 3 113 65.5 2.0 4.4 1.43
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 4 114 65.8 41.0 19.3 1.48
2.5.70-mm3n 4 112 67.0 41.1 18.8 1.42
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 112 67.9 46.1 21.4 1.45
2.5.70-mm3n 2 112 67.0 46.0 20.4 1.42
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 100 76.0 7.5 7.0 1.30
2.5.70-mm3n 2 101 75.2 7.6 5.9 1.28
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 92 82.6 0.0 5.4 1.19
2.5.70-mm3n 2 94 79.8 0.0 6.4 1.19
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 2 95 81.1 53.0 2.1 1.23
2.5.70-mm3n 2 94 80.9 52.0 2.1 1.19
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.70-mm31 4 297 24.9 4.5 52.5 3.86
2.5.70-mm3n 4 292 25.7 4.5 52.4 3.70
Note this time the ratio is less useful since they are both 100Hz. The
difference this time shows a large preempt improvement in process_load much
like 1000Hz did. Interestingly, even unloaded kernels no_load and cache_load
runs are faster with preempt. Only in xtar_load (repeatedly extracting a tar
with multiple small files) was no preempt faster.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+3EKfF6dfvkL3i1gRAjFpAKCpeVUOpCXd1xHrKYhEkeOYhuD1swCgmyRQ
NBf56mnwS02WY9wJ9FHctg0=
=cLte
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next reply other threads:[~2003-06-03 6:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-03 6:39 Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-06-03 17:05 ` [BENCHMARK] 100Hz preempt v nopreempt contest results Robert Love
2003-06-03 17:24 ` William Lee Irwin III
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=200306031639.49515.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=zwane@linuxpower.ca \
/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.