* [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest
@ 2002-11-24 13:17 Nero
2002-11-24 13:23 ` Nero
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nero @ 2002-11-24 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lkml; +Cc: Rik van Riel, Con Kolivas
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 84.6 95 0 0 1.00
2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 84.2 96 0 0 1.00
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 41.0 49 0 0 inf
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 140.8 55 133 45 1.66
2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 139.4 56 126 45 1.65
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 133.9 14 211 84 inf
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 164.8 51 33 19 1.95
2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 160.1 53 33 21 1.90
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 166.2 49 44 23 inf
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 0.0 0 0 7 0.00
2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 121.0 72 20 7 1.44
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 111.2 79 34 14 inf
rmap15 OOM'd the cc1 process twice and fscked this run up.
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 99.2 84 0 7 1.17
2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 100.7 83 0 7 1.20
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 96.7 85 0 8 inf
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 111.2 80 96 8 1.31
2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 106.1 82 96 9 1.26
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 126.3 66 77 3 inf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest
2002-11-24 13:17 [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest Nero
@ 2002-11-24 13:23 ` Nero
2002-11-24 13:32 ` Con Kolivas
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nero @ 2002-11-24 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lkml
Nero wrote:
> noload:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 84.6 95 0 0 1.00
> 2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 84.2 96 0 0 1.00
> 2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 41.0 49 0 0 inf
The time for rc1aa1 here is obviously wrong - this is a bug in contest,
according to Dr. Kolivas :-)
>
> process_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 140.8 55 133 45 1.66
> 2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 139.4 56 126 45 1.65
> 2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 133.9 14 211 84 inf
>
> io_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 164.8 51 33 19 1.95
> 2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 160.1 53 33 21 1.90
> 2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 166.2 49 44 23 inf
>
> read_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 0.0 0 0 7 0.00
> 2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 121.0 72 20 7 1.44
> 2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 111.2 79 34 14 inf
>
> rmap15 OOM'd the cc1 process twice and fscked this run up.
>
> list_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 99.2 84 0 7 1.17
> 2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 100.7 83 0 7 1.20
> 2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 96.7 85 0 8 inf
>
> mem_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 111.2 80 96 8 1.31
> 2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 106.1 82 96 9 1.26
> 2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 126.3 66 77 3 inf
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest
2002-11-24 13:17 [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest Nero
2002-11-24 13:23 ` Nero
@ 2002-11-24 13:32 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-24 13:34 ` Nero
2002-11-24 17:39 ` Rik van Riel
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2002-11-24 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nero, lkml; +Cc: Rik van Riel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thanks for this interesting comparison
>noload:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 84.6 95 0 0 1.00
>2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 84.2 96 0 0 1.00
>2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 41.0 49 0 0 inf
Clearly my braindead parser failed here. The time of aa1 should probably be 82
seconds (41.0 x 2) Can you check the full log of 2.4.20-rc1aa1.log ? It has
raw results.
>process_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 140.8 55 133 45 1.66
>2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 139.4 56 126 45 1.65
>2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 133.9 14 211 84 inf
If the error continued here (2 runs of process_load) then the time of aa1
should be 133.9 x 2. Can you check the full log of 2.4.20-rc1aa1.log here
too?
>io_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 164.8 51 33 19 1.95
>2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 160.1 53 33 21 1.90
>2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 166.2 49 44 23 inf
>
>read_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 0.0 0 0 7 0.00
>2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 121.0 72 20 7 1.44
>2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 111.2 79 34 14 inf
>
>rmap15 OOM'd the cc1 process twice and fscked this run up.
>
>list_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 99.2 84 0 7 1.17
>2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 100.7 83 0 7 1.20
>2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 96.7 85 0 8 inf
>
>mem_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 111.2 80 96 8 1.31
>2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 106.1 82 96 9 1.26
>2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 126.3 66 77 3 inf
With only one run these numbers appear not to be greatly statistically
significant, except for the mem_load results.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE94NTSF6dfvkL3i1gRAkwXAJ9YJmnxvxdiYyESNYLeQa9sbwR+2wCcCZal
bFKWReK3EP8oayP/GwiIK7c=
=gYaS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest
2002-11-24 13:17 [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest Nero
2002-11-24 13:23 ` Nero
2002-11-24 13:32 ` Con Kolivas
@ 2002-11-24 13:34 ` Nero
2002-11-24 17:39 ` Rik van Riel
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nero @ 2002-11-24 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Con Kolivas; +Cc: lkml
Con Kolivas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thanks for this interesting comparison
>
>
> >noload:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 84.6 95 0 0 1.00
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 84.2 96 0 0 1.00
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 41.0 49 0 0 inf
>
>
> Clearly my braindead parser failed here. The time of aa1 should
> probably be 82
> seconds (41.0 x 2) Can you check the full log of 2.4.20-rc1aa1.log ?
> It has
> raw results.
>
Yep.
noload Time: 81.95 CPU: 98% LoadRuns: 0 LoadCPU%: 0
>
> >process_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 140.8 55 133 45 1.66
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 139.4 56 126 45 1.65
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 133.9 14 211 84 inf
>
>
> If the error continued here (2 runs of process_load) then the time of aa1
> should be 133.9 x 2. Can you check the full log of 2.4.20-rc1aa1.log here
> too?
process_load Time: 267.85 CPU: 29% LoadRuns: 422 LoadCPU%: 70%
>
>
> >io_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 164.8 51 33 19 1.95
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 160.1 53 33 21 1.90
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 166.2 49 44 23 inf
> >
> >read_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 0.0 0 0 7 0.00
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 121.0 72 20 7 1.44
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 111.2 79 34 14 inf
> >
> >rmap15 OOM'd the cc1 process twice and fscked this run up.
> >
> >list_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 99.2 84 0 7 1.17
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 100.7 83 0 7 1.20
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 96.7 85 0 8 inf
> >
> >mem_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 111.2 80 96 8 1.31
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 106.1 82 96 9 1.26
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 126.3 66 77 3 inf
>
>
> With only one run these numbers appear not to be greatly statistically
> significant, except for the mem_load results.
>
> Con
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE94NTSF6dfvkL3i1gRAkwXAJ9YJmnxvxdiYyESNYLeQa9sbwR+2wCcCZal
> bFKWReK3EP8oayP/GwiIK7c=
> =gYaS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest
2002-11-24 13:17 [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest Nero
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-11-24 13:34 ` Nero
@ 2002-11-24 17:39 ` Rik van Riel
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-11-24 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nero; +Cc: lkml, Con Kolivas
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Nero wrote:
> read_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 0.0 0 0 7 0.00
> 2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 121.0 72 20 7 1.44
> 2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 111.2 79 34 14 inf
>
> rmap15 OOM'd the cc1 process twice and fscked this run up.
Known bug, should be fixed with the 2.4.19-rmap15-splitactive
patch I posted on friday:
http://surriel.com/patches/2.4/2.4.19-rmap15-splitactive
cheers,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-11-24 17:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-11-24 13:17 [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest Nero
2002-11-24 13:23 ` Nero
2002-11-24 13:32 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-24 13:34 ` Nero
2002-11-24 17:39 ` Rik van Riel
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.