From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.40-mm1 with contest
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:08:58 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1038953338.3ded2b7a5fe0d@kolivas.net> (raw)
Here are the latest contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) results with the osdl
hardware (http://www.osdl.org) in both UP and SMP. This is with a pre- version
of contest so includes cacherun and dbench_load and the load accounting is much
improved.
UP results
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 67.3 97 0 0 1.01
2.5.49 [5] 70.0 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.50 [5] 69.9 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 71.4 94 0 0 1.07
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 65.7 99 0 0 0.98
2.5.49 [5] 67.4 99 0 0 1.01
2.5.50 [5] 67.3 99 0 0 1.01
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 67.8 99 0 0 1.02
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 108.1 58 84 40 1.62
2.5.49 [5] 85.2 79 17 20 1.28
2.5.50 [5] 84.8 79 17 19 1.27
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 86.6 78 18 20 1.30
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 207.2 32 2 46 3.10
2.5.49 [5] 210.5 37 2 50 3.15
2.5.50 [5] 189.2 40 2 49 2.83
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 243.3 34 2 51 3.64
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 85.4 83 2 9 1.28
2.5.49 [5] 106.1 82 2 9 1.59
2.5.50 [5] 107.5 81 3 9 1.61
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 88.0 83 1 4 1.32
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 107.6 64 2 8 1.61
2.5.49 [5] 184.8 70 3 8 2.77
2.5.50 [5] 189.5 61 4 9 2.84
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 104.9 70 1 6 1.57
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 203.4 33 40 15 3.05
2.5.49 [5] 127.4 57 14 13 1.91
2.5.50 [5] 142.6 54 19 14 2.14
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 174.2 46 24 15 2.61
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 120.3 56 24 16 1.80
2.5.49 [5] 97.4 75 7 11 1.46
2.5.50 [5] 106.9 69 10 11 1.60
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 101.8 70 9 11 1.52
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 88.8 82 16 4 1.33
2.5.49 [5] 88.2 80 15 6 1.32
2.5.50 [5] 88.5 80 15 7 1.33
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 86.6 80 3 2 1.30
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 75.7 88 0 8 1.13
2.5.49 [5] 81.4 85 0 8 1.22
2.5.50 [5] 81.2 85 0 8 1.22
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 82.4 84 0 7 1.23
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 84.8 80 44 2 1.27
2.5.49 [5] 98.1 76 43 2 1.47
2.5.50 [5] 98.3 76 44 2 1.47
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 116.9 67 47 1 1.75
SMP Results
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 36.9 189 0 0 1.02
2.5.49 [6] 39.3 181 0 0 1.09
2.5.50 [5] 39.3 180 0 0 1.09
2.5.50-mm1 [6] 39.4 181 0 0 1.09
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 35.8 194 0 0 0.99
2.5.49 [6] 36.6 194 0 0 1.01
2.5.50 [5] 36.5 194 0 0 1.01
2.5.50-mm1 [6] 36.6 194 0 0 1.01
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 51.0 138 20 59 1.41
2.5.49 [6] 50.0 141 11 52 1.38
2.5.50 [5] 47.8 148 10 46 1.32
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 47.6 150 8 43 1.31
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 144.8 49 0 38 4.00
2.5.49 [5] 119.8 96 0 26 3.31
2.5.50 [5] 199.8 101 0 24 5.52
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 164.3 67 0 29 4.54
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 43.1 169 1 11 1.19
2.5.49 [5] 53.8 161 1 10 1.49
2.5.50 [5] 54.6 157 1 10 1.51
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 51.3 155 0 4 1.42
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 63.5 114 1 12 1.75
2.5.49 [5] 72.9 132 1 10 2.01
2.5.50 [5] 116.2 103 2 10 3.21
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 83.9 111 1 9 2.32
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 164.9 45 31 21 4.55
2.5.49 [5] 75.5 110 9 18 2.09
2.5.50 [5] 87.6 102 14 22 2.42
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 99.0 92 14 21 2.73
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 89.6 86 17 21 2.47
2.5.49 [5] 64.2 130 8 19 1.77
2.5.50 [5] 59.3 139 7 18 1.64
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 70.5 125 10 22 1.95
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 51.0 143 7 7 1.41
2.5.49 [5] 49.1 152 5 7 1.36
2.5.50 [5] 49.3 151 5 7 1.36
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 52.1 142 2 3 1.44
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 40.4 175 0 8 1.12
2.5.49 [5] 43.4 167 0 8 1.20
2.5.50 [5] 43.4 167 0 8 1.20
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 44.0 167 0 7 1.22
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.20 [5] 52.0 139 37 3 1.44
2.5.49 [5] 62.5 145 35 3 1.73
2.5.50 [5] 63.3 141 36 3 1.75
2.5.50-mm1 [5] 67.1 126 39 3 1.85
Further information will be available at
http://www.osdl.org/projects/ctdevel/results/ (short lag time for the web server
to catch up).
Note that some of these runs have pathological cases so looking at the full load
information (eg io_load.log) will show you these. Thats why average of 5 runs is
performed. I may move to 7 runs in the future.
Con
next reply other threads:[~2002-12-03 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-03 22:08 Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-12-04 8:43 ` [BENCHMARK] 2.5.40-mm1 with contest Giuliano Pochini
2002-12-04 9:28 ` Con Kolivas
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=1038953338.3ded2b7a5fe0d@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox