From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@conectiva.com.br
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] contest results for 2.5.36
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:41:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D88ACB6.6374E014@digeo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1032360386.3d8891c2bc3d3@kolivas.net
Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> Here are the latest results with 2.5.36 compared with 2.5.34
>
> No Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 68.14 99%
> 2.4.20-pre7 68.11 99%
> 2.5.34 69.88 99%
> 2.4.19-ck7 68.40 98%
> 2.4.19-ck7-rmap 68.73 99%
> 2.4.19-cc 68.37 99%
> 2.5.36 69.58 99%
page_add/remove_rmap. Be interesting to test an Alan kernel too.
> Process Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 81.10 80%
> 2.4.20-pre7 81.92 80%
> 2.5.34 71.39 94%
> 2.5.36 71.80 94%
Ingo ;)
> Mem Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 92.49 77%
> 2.4.20-pre7 92.25 77%
> 2.5.34 138.05 54%
> 2.5.36 132.45 56%
The swapping fix in -mm1 may help here.
> IO Halfmem Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 99.41 70%
> 2.4.20-pre7 99.42 71%
> 2.5.34 74.31 93%
> 2.5.36 94.82 76%
Don't know. Was this with IO load against the same disk as
the one on which the kernel was being compiled, or a different
one? This is a very important factor - one way we're testing the
VM and the other way we're testing the IO scheduler.
> IO Fullmem Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 173.00 41%
> 2.4.20-pre7 146.38 48%
> 2.5.34 74.00 94%
> 2.5.36 87.57 81%
If the IO load was against the same disk 2.5 _should_ have sucked,
due to the writes-starves-reads problem which we're working on. So
I assume it was against a different disk. In which case 2.5 should not
have shown these improvements, because all the fixes for this are still
in -mm. hm. Helpful, aren't I?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-18 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-18 14:46 [BENCHMARK] contest results for 2.5.36 Con Kolivas
2002-09-18 16:41 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-09-18 16:50 ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-19 8:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-19 8:14 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-18 21:17 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-18 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-18 23:55 ` NMI watchdog stability Jonathan Lundell
2002-09-19 12:07 ` John Levon
2002-09-19 13:20 ` Richard B. Johnson
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=3D88ACB6.6374E014@digeo.com \
--to=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
/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.