Re: cyclic test results on 8 way (2.6.23.1-rt7 through 2.6.23.1-rt11)

["Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@novell.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3383 bytes --]

>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2007 at  2:34 AM, in message
<200711072334.40216.dvhltc@us.ibm.com>, Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Greg,
> 
> Here are the results I promised you.

Darren,
   First off, thanks a bunch for running through those tests!

> I don't think they are particularly interesting

They *are* interesting in the sense that peaks of 40ish for an 8-way are excellent IMO ;)  But yeah, i see what you mean; theres no interesting difference between them.

Do you have any comparative data from runs in -rt1 or earlier kernels?

> perhaps more iterations, say 1000000? 

We generally load the system up a lot more (e.g. "make -j 128")  or let it run for a long time with the make in a loop (or both).  For instance, here is the last data I gathered (with plot attached).  This was for a single pass of "make mrproper; make allmodconfig; time make -j 128"
 
23.1-rt7
-----------------
real    10m49.312s
user    49m59.674s
sys     16m15.404s

26.38 76.02 56.11 1/304 21301

T: 0 ( 5959) P:90 I:100 C:7500381 Min:      2 Act:    2 Avg:    4 Max:      78
T: 1 ( 5960) P:89 I:200 C:3750191 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    5 Max:      91
T: 2 ( 5961) P:88 I:300 C:2500127 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    4 Max:      66
T: 3 ( 5962) P:87 I:400 C:1875096 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    6 Max:     106
T: 4 ( 5963) P:86 I:500 C:1500077 Min:      2 Act:    6 Avg:    5 Max:      92
T: 5 ( 5964) P:85 I:600 C:1250064 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    6 Max:      93
T: 6 ( 5965) P:84 I:700 C:1071483 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    6 Max:      78
T: 7 ( 5966) P:83 I:800 C: 937548 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    6 Max:      97

23.1-rt10
-----------------

real    10m39.046s
user    56m31.662s
sys     12m51.158s

7.64 63.88 62.70 1/291 30774

T: 0 (15455) P:90 I:100 C:8001856 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    4 Max:      65
T: 1 (15456) P:89 I:200 C:4000928 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    4 Max:      46
T: 2 (15457) P:88 I:300 C:2667286 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    5 Max:      54
T: 3 (15458) P:87 I:400 C:2000464 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    5 Max:      46
T: 4 (15459) P:86 I:500 C:1600372 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    5 Max:      46
T: 5 (15460) P:85 I:600 C:1333643 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    5 Max:      75
T: 6 (15461) P:84 I:700 C:1143123 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    6 Max:      52
T: 7 (15462) P:83 I:800 C:1000232 Min:      2 Act:    4 Avg:    5 Max:      66

23.1-rt11
-----------------

real    10m41.610s
user    55m37.065s
sys     13m16.394s

101.92 101.56 61.65 1/308 21349

T: 0 ( 6028) P:90 I:100 C:6584414 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    4 Max:      55
T: 1 ( 6029) P:89 I:200 C:3292207 Min:      2 Act:    6 Avg:    5 Max:      58
T: 2 ( 6030) P:88 I:300 C:2194805 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    5 Max:      54
T: 3 ( 6031) P:87 I:400 C:1646104 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    5 Max:      79
T: 4 ( 6032) P:86 I:500 C:1316883 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    5 Max:      60
T: 5 ( 6033) P:85 I:600 C:1097403 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    6 Max:      45
T: 6 ( 6034) P:84 I:700 C: 940631 Min:      2 Act:    3 Avg:    6 Max:      45
T: 7 ( 6035) P:83 I:800 C: 823052 Min:      2 Act:    5 Avg:    6 Max:      47

As Steven Rostedt pointed out on IRC, numbers coming from me are suspect ;).  But we can at least use them to see if you can repro similar results.

Thanks again!

Regards,
-Greg


[-- Attachment #2: Portable Network Graphics Format --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 5130 bytes --]