* [BENCHMARK] 2.5.43 with contest
@ 2002-10-16 6:24 Con Kolivas
2002-10-16 14:49 ` John Stoffel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2002-10-16 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux kernel mailing list
Here are the latest contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks including 2.5.43
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.38 [3] 72.0 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.39 [2] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.40 [1] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08
2.5.41 [1] 73.8 93 0 0 1.10
2.5.42 [2] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 78.1 93 0 0 1.16
2.5.43 [2] 74.6 92 0 0 1.11
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.38 [3] 89.5 74 34 28 1.33
2.5.39 [2] 91.2 73 36 28 1.36
2.5.40 [2] 82.8 80 25 23 1.23
2.5.41 [1] 91.1 73 38 30 1.36
2.5.42 [1] 98.0 69 44 33 1.46
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 100.9 69 48 33 1.50
2.5.43 [2] 99.7 71 44 31 1.48
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.38 [1] 97.2 79 1 6 1.45
2.5.39 [1] 91.8 83 1 6 1.37
2.5.40 [1] 96.9 80 1 6 1.44
2.5.41 [1] 93.3 81 1 6 1.39
2.5.42 [1] 96.7 80 1 7 1.44
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 96.2 80 1 6 1.43
2.5.43 [1] 97.6 79 1 7 1.45
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.38 [1] 120.5 63 2 8 1.79
2.5.39 [1] 108.3 69 1 6 1.61
2.5.40 [1] 110.7 68 1 6 1.65
2.5.41 [2] 138.8 53 2 8 2.07
2.5.42 [1] 112.7 66 1 7 1.68
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 203.0 37 2 7 3.02
2.5.43 [1] 114.9 67 1 7 1.71
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.38 [1] 4000.0 1 500 1 59.55
2.5.39 [2] 423.9 18 30 11 6.31
2.5.40 [1] 315.7 25 22 10 4.70
2.5.41 [2] 607.5 13 47 12 9.04
2.5.42 [1] 849.1 9 69 12 12.64
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 393.1 19 27 11 5.85
2.5.43 [1] 578.9 13 45 12 8.62
Difference between 2.5.42 and .43 is likely to be due to lack of enough runs to
get a real average. They're probably the same (ie. more than the -mm tree).
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.38 [2] 100.5 76 9 5 1.50
2.5.39 [2] 101.3 74 14 6 1.51
2.5.40 [1] 101.5 73 13 5 1.51
2.5.41 [1] 101.1 75 7 4 1.51
2.5.42 [1] 102.0 75 8 5 1.52
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 107.1 72 6 4 1.59
2.5.43 [3] 117.3 64 6 3 1.75
This is the only significant difference. Continually reading a large file seems
to have caused a new slow down.
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.38 [1] 99.1 71 1 20 1.48
2.5.39 [1] 101.3 70 2 24 1.51
2.5.40 [1] 97.0 72 1 21 1.44
2.5.41 [1] 93.6 75 1 18 1.39
2.5.42 [1] 97.5 71 1 20 1.45
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 97.1 73 1 21 1.45
2.5.43 [2] 93.0 76 1 18 1.38
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.38 [3] 107.3 70 34 3 1.60
2.5.39 [2] 103.1 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.40 [2] 102.5 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.41 [1] 101.6 73 30 3 1.51
2.5.42 [1] 104.0 72 30 3 1.55
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 109.6 67 27 2 1.63
2.5.43 [1] 102.0 75 28 2 1.52
Hardware: 1133Mhz P3 with 224Mb Ram, 5400rpm ATA100 HD with reiserFS. IO loads
on same disk as kernel compile.
Con.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.43 with contest
2002-10-16 6:24 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.43 with contest Con Kolivas
@ 2002-10-16 14:49 ` John Stoffel
2002-10-16 14:56 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: John Stoffel @ 2002-10-16 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Con Kolivas; +Cc: linux kernel mailing list
Con,
Why are you bothering to show the older 2.5.3x series of kernels, but
dropping the 2.4.18 results? Wouldn't it make sense to see how the
latest kernels in each section were doing?
Con> Here are the latest contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks including 2.5.43
Con> noload:
Con> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
Con> 2.5.38 [3] 72.0 93 0 0 1.07
Con> 2.5.39 [2] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07
Con> 2.5.40 [1] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08
Con> 2.5.41 [1] 73.8 93 0 0 1.10
Con> 2.5.42 [2] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08
Con> 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 78.1 93 0 0 1.16
Con> 2.5.43 [2] 74.6 92 0 0 1.11
Thanks,
John
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.43 with contest
2002-10-16 14:49 ` John Stoffel
@ 2002-10-16 14:56 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2002-10-16 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Stoffel; +Cc: linux kernel mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:49 am, John Stoffel wrote:
> Con,
>
> Why are you bothering to show the older 2.5.3x series of kernels, but
> dropping the 2.4.18 results? Wouldn't it make sense to see how the
> latest kernels in each section were doing?
My main interest in doing these is to help 2.5 development as 2.4 is not
changing dramatically anywhere in the near future. As the number of data
points increase the ability to sift through the information will decrease.
The comparison to 2.4 kernels has been made in the past and I felt that
showing the progression of 2.5 would be more helpful as the change made by
each step could be quantified. I dont mind posting a full set of benchmarks
but people are less likely to read through a huge set of data trying to find
the relevant information. If someone feels I am in error I would be happy to
change what I'm doing.
Cheers,
Con.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9rX4NF6dfvkL3i1gRAq8oAJ9QwnsPvNx4P7MDZdDWJOonA/HDUgCfTKj3
hReHZbmbXsCjCkuEJwOrDpQ=
=lun1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.43 with contest
@ 2002-10-16 19:11 Dieter Nützel
2002-10-17 2:04 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dieter Nützel @ 2002-10-16 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Con Kolivas; +Cc: Linux Kernel List
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:56, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:49 am, John Stoffel wrote:
> > Con,
> >
> > Why are you bothering to show the older 2.5.3x series of kernels, but
> > dropping the 2.4.18 results? Wouldn't it make sense to see how the
> > latest kernels in each section were doing?
>
> My main interest in doing these is to help 2.5 development as 2.4 is not
> changing dramatically anywhere in the near future. As the number of data
> points increase the ability to sift through the information will decrease.
> The comparison to 2.4 kernels has been made in the past and I felt that
> showing the progression of 2.5 would be more helpful as the change made by
> each step could be quantified. I dont mind posting a full set of benchmarks
> but people are less likely to read through a huge set of data trying to find
> he relevant information. If someone feels I am in error I would be happy to
> change what I'm doing.
But please keep a 2.4.19 (2.4.20.pre-latest/-AA) for comparison.
The -AA VM is so GREAT for 2.4 that times can come porting some stuff to
2.5...;-)
Thanks,
Dieter
--
Dieter Nützel
Graduate Student, Computer Science
University of Hamburg
Department of Computer Science
@home: Dieter.Nuetzel at hamburg.de (replace at with @)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.43 with contest
2002-10-16 19:11 Dieter Nützel
@ 2002-10-17 2:04 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2002-10-17 2:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dieter Nützel; +Cc: Linux Kernel List
Quoting Dieter Nützel <Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de>:
> But please keep a 2.4.19 (2.4.20.pre-latest/-AA) for comparison.
> The -AA VM is so GREAT for 2.4 that times can come porting some stuff to
> 2.5...;-)
Fine every so often I'll throw in a complete set for interest. Here's one now
including 2.4.18 which was recently requested. These are results only from the
same version of contest (0.51):
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 71.8 93 0 0 1.07
2.4.19 [3] 67.7 98 0 0 1.01
2.4.19-cc [3] 67.9 97 0 0 1.01
2.4.19-ck7 [3] 73.8 96 0 0 1.10
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 68.8 97 0 0 1.02
2.5.38 [3] 72.0 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.39 [2] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.40 [1] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08
2.5.41 [1] 73.8 93 0 0 1.10
2.5.41-mm3 [1] 74.4 93 0 0 1.11
2.5.42 [2] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 79.0 92 0 0 1.18
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 78.1 93 0 0 1.16
2.5.43 [2] 74.6 92 0 0 1.11
2.5.43-mm1 [4] 74.9 93 0 0 1.12
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 109.5 57 119 44 1.63
2.4.19 [3] 106.5 59 112 43 1.59
2.4.19-cc [3] 105.0 59 110 42 1.56
2.4.19-ck7 [3] 93.4 76 68 27 1.39
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 94.3 70 83 32 1.40
2.5.38 [3] 89.5 74 34 28 1.33
2.5.39 [2] 91.2 73 36 28 1.36
2.5.40 [2] 82.8 80 25 23 1.23
2.5.41 [1] 91.1 73 38 30 1.36
2.5.41-mm3 [1] 95.5 75 31 28 1.42
2.5.42 [1] 98.0 69 44 33 1.46
2.5.42-mm2 [2] 104.5 72 31 30 1.56
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 100.9 69 48 33 1.50
2.5.43 [2] 99.7 71 44 31 1.48
2.5.43-mm1 [4] 201.3 59 178 42 3.00
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 117.4 63 1 7 1.75
2.4.19 [2] 106.5 70 1 8 1.59
2.4.19-ck7 [3] 142.3 57 2 10 2.12
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 110.5 71 1 9 1.65
2.5.38 [1] 97.2 79 1 6 1.45
2.5.39 [1] 91.8 83 1 6 1.37
2.5.40 [1] 96.9 80 1 6 1.44
2.5.41 [1] 93.3 81 1 6 1.39
2.5.41-mm3 [1] 92.1 81 1 5 1.37
2.5.42 [1] 96.7 80 1 7 1.44
2.5.42-mm2 [2] 102.3 79 1 6 1.52
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 96.2 80 1 6 1.43
2.5.43 [1] 97.6 79 1 7 1.45
2.5.43-mm1 [3] 94.6 81 1 6 1.41
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 150.8 49 2 8 2.25
2.4.19 [1] 132.4 55 2 9 1.97
2.4.19-ck7 [3] 238.3 33 5 11 3.55
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 138.6 58 2 11 2.06
2.5.38 [1] 120.5 63 2 8 1.79
2.5.39 [1] 108.3 69 1 6 1.61
2.5.40 [1] 110.7 68 1 6 1.65
2.5.41 [2] 138.8 53 2 8 2.07
2.5.41-mm3 [1] 215.9 34 3 7 3.21
2.5.42 [1] 112.7 66 1 7 1.68
2.5.42-mm2 [2] 195.0 41 2 6 2.90
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 203.0 37 2 7 3.02
2.5.43 [1] 114.9 67 1 7 1.71
2.5.43-mm1 [3] 221.2 46 3 7 3.29
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 474.1 15 36 10 7.06
2.4.19 [3] 492.6 14 38 10 7.33
2.4.19-cc [3] 156.0 48 12 10 2.32
2.4.19-ck7 [2] 174.6 41 8 8 2.60
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 140.6 49 5 5 2.09
2.5.38 [1] 4000.0 1 500 1 59.55
2.5.39 [2] 423.9 18 30 11 6.31
2.5.40 [1] 315.7 25 22 10 4.70
2.5.41 [2] 607.5 13 47 12 9.04
2.5.41-mm3 [1] 312.4 25 20 11 4.65
2.5.42 [1] 849.1 9 69 12 12.64
2.5.42-mm2 [2] 250.7 34 15 10 3.73
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 393.1 19 27 11 5.85
2.5.43 [1] 578.9 13 45 12 8.62
2.5.43-mm1 [3] 383.0 21 27 11 5.70
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 102.3 70 6 3 1.52
2.4.19 [2] 134.1 54 14 5 2.00
2.4.19-cc [2] 92.5 72 22 20 1.38
2.4.19-ck7 [2] 119.4 66 12 5 1.78
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 77.4 85 11 9 1.15
2.5.38 [2] 100.5 76 9 5 1.50
2.5.39 [2] 101.3 74 14 6 1.51
2.5.40 [1] 101.5 73 13 5 1.51
2.5.41 [1] 101.1 75 7 4 1.51
2.5.41-mm3 [1] 102.0 74 6 4 1.52
2.5.42 [1] 102.0 75 8 5 1.52
2.5.42-mm2 [2] 109.0 75 7 4 1.62
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 107.1 72 6 4 1.59
2.5.43 [3] 117.3 64 6 3 1.75
2.5.43-mm1 [3] 104.4 74 7 4 1.55
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 90.2 76 1 17 1.34
2.4.19 [1] 89.8 77 1 20 1.34
2.4.19-ck7 [2] 104.0 70 1 21 1.55
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 85.2 79 1 22 1.27
2.5.38 [1] 99.1 71 1 20 1.48
2.5.39 [1] 101.3 70 2 24 1.51
2.5.40 [1] 97.0 72 1 21 1.44
2.5.41 [1] 93.6 75 1 18 1.39
2.5.41-mm3 [1] 95.9 74 1 22 1.43
2.5.42 [1] 97.5 71 1 20 1.45
2.5.42-mm2 [2] 105.3 72 1 24 1.57
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 97.1 73 1 21 1.45
2.5.43 [2] 93.0 76 1 18 1.38
2.5.43-mm1 [3] 97.3 73 0 19 1.45
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 103.3 70 32 3 1.54
2.4.19 [3] 100.0 72 33 3 1.49
2.4.19-cc [3] 92.7 76 146 21 1.38
2.4.19-ck7 [2] 116.0 69 35 3 1.73
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 78.3 88 31 8 1.17
2.5.38 [3] 107.3 70 34 3 1.60
2.5.39 [2] 103.1 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.40 [2] 102.5 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.41 [1] 101.6 73 30 3 1.51
2.5.41-mm3 [2] 107.1 68 27 2 1.59
2.5.42 [1] 104.0 72 30 3 1.55
2.5.42-mm2 [2] 121.2 65 30 2 1.80
2.5.42-mm3 [2] 109.6 67 27 2 1.63
2.5.43 [1] 102.0 75 28 2 1.52
2.5.43-mm1 [3] 104.4 71 27 2 1.55
Cheers,
Con.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-10-17 1:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-10-16 6:24 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.43 with contest Con Kolivas
2002-10-16 14:49 ` John Stoffel
2002-10-16 14:56 ` Con Kolivas
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-16 19:11 Dieter Nützel
2002-10-17 2:04 ` Con Kolivas
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox