From: Nero <neroz@iinet.net.au>
To: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:34:54 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DE0D57E.8060203@iinet.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3DE0D157.9020906@iinet.net.au>
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-----
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-24 13:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 [this message]
2002-11-24 17:39 ` Rik van Riel
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=3DE0D57E.8060203@iinet.net.au \
--to=neroz@iinet.net.au \
--cc=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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.