public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
	Ville Herva <vherva@niksula.hut.fi>,
	Alexei Podtelezhnikov <apodtele@mccammon.ucsd.edu>,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] Corrected gcc3.2 v gcc2.95.3 contest results
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:55:30 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1032764130.3d8ebae220908@kolivas.net> (raw)


One of those 2.96 compilers snuck in (my poor use of autocomplete). I take back
all the previous data and submit accurate ones, and apologise profusely for
ruining the signal to noise ratio on this list

To rehash what the last results were _supposed_ to be and what these are. I have
identical config 2.5.38 kernels compiled with either gcc2.95.3 or gcc3.2. Then I
run these two kernels through a contest benchmark (http://contest.kolivas.net)
using ONLY gcc2.95.3 to run the benchmark.

Kernel                  Time            CPU
NoLoad:
2.5.38                  68.25           99%
2.5.38-gcc32            67.28           99%
Process Load:
2.5.38                  71.60           95%
2.5.38-gcc32            70.86           94%
IO Half Load:
2.5.38                  81.26           90%
2.5.38-gcc32            88.11           82%
IO Full Load:
2.5.38                  170.21          42%
2.5.38-gcc32            230.77          30%
Mem Load:
2.5.38                  104.22          70%
2.5.38-gcc32            104.97          70%

This time only the IO loads showed a statistically significant difference.

Terribly sorry about that previous mess


Full logs:

2.5.38 (with gcc2.95.3)
noload Time: 68.25  CPU: 99%  Major Faults: 204613  Minor Faults: 255906
process_load Time: 71.60  CPU: 95%  Major Faults: 204019  Minor Faults: 255238
io_halfmem Time: 81.26  CPU: 90%  Major Faults: 204019  Minor Faults: 255325
Was writing number 4 of a 112Mb sized io_load file after 90 seconds
io_fullmem Time: 170.21  CPU: 42%  Major Faults: 204019  Minor Faults: 255272
Was writing number 6 of a 224Mb sized io_load file after 194 seconds
mem_load Time: 104.22  CPU: 70%  Major Faults: 204120  Minor Faults: 256271

2.5.38 (with gcc 3.2)
noload Time: 67.28  CPU: 99%  Major Faults: 205108  Minor Faults: 256153
process_load Time: 70.86  CPU: 94%  Major Faults: 204019  Minor Faults: 254983
io_halfmem Time: 88.11  CPU: 82%  Major Faults: 204019  Minor Faults: 255110
Was writing number 5 of a 112Mb sized io_load file after 99 seconds
io_fullmem Time: 230.77  CPU: 30%  Major Faults: 204019  Minor Faults: 254998
Was writing number 11 of a 224Mb sized io_load file after 303 seconds
mem_load Time: 104.97  CPU: 70%  Major Faults: 204208  Minor Faults: 255956

Con.

             reply	other threads:[~2002-09-23  6:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-09-23  6:55 Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-09-23  7:49 ` [BENCHMARK] Corrected gcc3.2 v gcc2.95.3 contest results Ingo Molnar
2002-09-23 10:30   ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-23 11:03     ` jw schultz
2002-09-23 12:47     ` Erik Andersen
2002-09-23 13:00       ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-23 13:15       ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-23 13:35         ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-23 14:09           ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-23 18:24       ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-23 14:02     ` Ryan Anderson
2002-09-23 14:15       ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-23 14:24         ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-23 14:34           ` Jakub Jelinek
2002-09-23 16:03             ` Måns Rullgård
2002-09-23 14:43           ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-24 21:30             ` Bill Davidsen
2002-09-23 16:34           ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-09-23 21:47             ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-24  1:12               ` jw schultz
2002-09-24  9:18                 ` Jan Hudec
2002-09-23 14:26     ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-23 14:36       ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-24 21:27   ` Bill Davidsen
     [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.33.0209232236070.27095-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
2002-09-24  2:45 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-24  3:01   ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-24  9:34     ` Jan Hudec
2002-09-24 13:45     ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-09-24  9:26       ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-24 14:19         ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-09-24 15:47       ` Mark Hahn

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=1032764130.3d8ebae220908@kolivas.net \
    --to=conman@kolivas.net \
    --cc=akpm@digeo.com \
    --cc=apodtele@mccammon.ucsd.edu \
    --cc=dan@debian.org \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rml@tech9.net \
    --cc=vherva@niksula.hut.fi \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox