Best tests to measure Kernel Performance

[der.herr@hofr.at (Nicholas Mc Guire)]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:36:50PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:50:30PM -0600, Victor Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:45:51PM -0600, Victor Rodriguez wrote:
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> Despite the fact that this is not a well formulated question. I wonder
> > >> what tests could be a good subset to measure the performance of the
> > >> kernel . I have some approaches like phoronix does here :
> > >>
> > >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-41-byt&num=1
> > >>
> > >> I am sure postmark/ John the ripper/ Apache are good candidates but I
> > >> want to ask the community if there is some specific test that you
> > >> recommend
> > >
> > > It depends on what you want to test, specifically.  The "kernel" isn't a
> > > very specific thing, what most of those tests test is the speed of the
> > > hardware, not specifically the kernel itself.
> > >
> > > good luck,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> > 
> > Thanks for the feedback . You are right they test the speed of the HW
> > however I have seen that when there is a change in the kernel for
> > network the performance of apache is changed, which make total sense .
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, depending on if "apache" is cpu or hardware bound
> (networking hardware has physical limits...) again, you have to be very
> sure about exactly what you are wanting to test before using such a test
> to try to "validate" anything other than just raw hardware speed.
> 
> Take a look at the "old" lmbench set of benchmarks for valid things that
> a kernel change can affect, it's much different from what you might be
> thinking of as a test.
>
We also still use lmbench as the usual first level of assessment as
it gives a lot of information about the change set impact on low-level
functions (system-calls, IPC, allocation...) was. It is much more precise
than trying to detect changes in complex applications that might only be making
a handful of a affected system call and thus look like
performance did not change while it actually did - just its in some
hard to reach corner case.

As with all testing - you need layers of testing to get a usable
picture of what is going on and lmbench is a good candidate for the
lowest level. Deducing system level changes from looking at complex 
application performance changes is alost impossible.

Specifically lmbench has a simple  make results; make rerun  which can give
a good overview of differences - but actually the tests default runs are 
only a small part of what the tests can uncover so looking at individual 
microbenchmarks to discover latency/bandwidth changes can be very helpful 
also to uncover odd hardware behavior.  

Some other low-level benchmarks we use are:
 rt-tests - scheduling, pi
 NetPIPE - network bandwidth
 bonnie++ - filesystem

thx!
hofrat