* [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63
@ 2003-02-27 21:39 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2003-02-27 22:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Ciarrocchi @ 2003-02-27 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: akpm
Hi all,
the subject says everything.
I don't post the results that don's show intersting number.
2.4.19
2.5.58
2.5.63
creat-clo 10040 19.4223 19422.31 File Creations and Closes/second
creat-clo 10020 79.7405 79740.52 File Creations and Closes/second
creat-clo 10010 84.3157 84315.68 File Creations and Closes/second
^^^^^ Amazing improvement here
page_test 10000 123.9 210630.00 System Allocations & Pages/second
page_test 10000 102.8 174760.00 System Allocations & Pages/second
page_test 10010 101.898 173226.77 System Allocations & Pages/second
^^^^^Here we are still slowe then 2.4.19
brk_test 10010 48.951 832167.83 System Memory Allocations/second
brk_test 10000 43.7 742900.00 System Memory Allocations/second
brk_test 10020 41.018 697305.39 System Memory Allocations/second
^^^^Slower then .58 and a lot slower then 2.4.19
signal_test 10000 166.1 166100.00 Signal Traps/second
signal_test 10010 156.843 156843.16 Signal Traps/second
signal_test 10000 148.3 148300.00 Signal Traps/second
^^^^Slower then .58 and a lot slower then 2.4.19
exec_test 10000 13.8 69.00 Program Loads/second
exec_test 10030 12.8614 64.31 Program Loads/second
exec_test 10020 12.7745 63.87 Program Loads/second
^^^^ Slower then 2.4.19
fork_test 10000 44.8 4480.00 Task Creations/second
fork_test 10020 24.8503 2485.03 Task Creations/second
fork_test 10000 23.2 2320.00 Task Creations/second
^^^^^ A lot slower then 2.4.19
link_test 10000 155.3 9783.90 Link/Unlink Pairs/second
link_test 10000 135 8505.00 Link/Unlink Pairs/second
link_test 10010 160.739 10126.57 Link/Unlink Pairs/second
^^^^Big improvement here
disk_rw 10060 5.666 29009.94 Random Disk Writes (K)/second
disk_rw 10110 6.42928 32917.90 Random Disk Writes (K)/second
disk_rw 10010 6.39361 32735.26 Random Disk Writes (K)/second
^^^^^Fatser then 2.4.19
sync_disk_rw 16020 0.062422 159.80 Sync Random Disk Writes (K)/second
sync_disk_rw 14600 0.0684932 175.34 Sync Random Disk Writes (K)/second
sync_disk_rw 14410 0.0693963 177.65 Sync Random Disk Writes (K)/second
^^^^ Faster then 2.4.19
array_rtns 10010 13.6863 273.73 Linear Systems Solved/second
array_rtns 10030 13.0608 261.22 Linear Systems Solved/second
array_rtns 10020 11.2774 225.55 Linear Systems Solved/second
^^^^2.5.63 is slower then .58 and slower then 2.4.19
mem_rtns_1 10000 27.7 831000.00 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
mem_rtns_1 10000 24.1 723000.00 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
mem_rtns_1 10020 22.7545 682634.73 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
^^^^^Slow, slow, slow...
misc_rtns_1 10000 782.2 7822.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
misc_rtns_1 10000 706 7060.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
misc_rtns_1 10000 686.9 6869.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
^^^^ Slow too...
dir_rtns_1 10000 85.8 858000.00 Directory Operations/second
dir_rtns_1 10010 101.598 1015984.02 Directory Operations/second
dir_rtns_1 10010 101.998 1019980.02 Directory Operations/second
^^^^ Fast, really fast
shared_memory 10000 2227.4 222740.00 Shared Memory Operations/second
shared_memory 10000 1973.1 197310.00 Shared Memory Operations/second
shared_memory 10000 1955.2 195520.00 Shared Memory Operations/second
^^^^Slow, slow, slow...
tcp_test 10000 661.7 59553.00 TCP/IP Messages/second
tcp_test 10000 532.7 47943.00 TCP/IP Messages/second
tcp_test 10000 539.3 48537.00 TCP/IP Messages/second
^^^^Debug code, I guess.
udp_test 10000 1182.7 118270.00 UDP/IP DataGrams/second
udp_test 10000 931.5 93150.00 UDP/IP DataGrams/second
udp_test 10000 909.3 90930.00 UDP/IP DataGrams/second
^^^^Debug code, I guess.
fifo_test 10000 1207 120700.00 FIFO Messages/second
fifo_test 10000 997.2 99720.00 FIFO Messages/second
fifo_test 10000 1117.3 111730.00 FIFO Messages/second
^^^^^Faster then 2.5.58 but slower then 2.4.19
stream_pipe 10000 2418.6 241860.00 Stream Pipe Messages/second
stream_pipe 10000 2190 219000.00 Stream Pipe Messages/second
stream_pipe 10000 2176.7 217670.00 Stream Pipe Messages/second
^^^^Still slower then 2.4.19
dgram_pipe 10000 2357.8 235780.00 DataGram Pipe Messages/second
dgram_pipe 10000 2040 204000.00 DataGram Pipe Messages/second
dgram_pipe 10000 1978 197800.00 DataGram Pipe Messages/second
^^^^Debug code, I guess.
pipe_cpy 10000 3918 391800.00 Pipe Messages/second
pipe_cpy 10000 2949.9 294990.00 Pipe Messages/second
pipe_cpy 10000 3123.7 312370.00 Pipe Messages/second
^^^^^Faster then 2.5.58 but slower then 2.4.19
Hope it helps.
Ciao,
Paolo
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63
2003-02-27 21:39 [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63 Paolo Ciarrocchi
@ 2003-02-27 22:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-02-27 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Ciarrocchi, linux-kernel; +Cc: akpm
> page_test 10000 123.9 210630.00 System Allocations & Pages/second
> page_test 10000 102.8 174760.00 System Allocations & Pages/second
> page_test 10010 101.898 173226.77 System Allocations & Pages/second
> ^^^^^Here we are still slowe then 2.4.19
>
> brk_test 10010 48.951 832167.83 System Memory Allocations/second
> brk_test 10000 43.7 742900.00 System Memory Allocations/second
> brk_test 10020 41.018 697305.39 System Memory Allocations/second
> ^^^^Slower then .58 and a lot slower then 2.4.19
>
> exec_test 10000 13.8 69.00 Program Loads/second
> exec_test 10030 12.8614 64.31 Program Loads/second
> exec_test 10020 12.7745 63.87 Program Loads/second
> ^^^^ Slower then 2.4.19
>
> fork_test 10000 44.8 4480.00 Task Creations/second
> fork_test 10020 24.8503 2485.03 Task Creations/second
> fork_test 10000 23.2 2320.00 Task Creations/second
> ^^^^^ A lot slower then 2.4.19
Could you compare 63 mainline to -mjb or -mm with objrmap patches in?
I think you'll get significant improvements on the tests above.
> mem_rtns_1 10000 27.7 831000.00 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
> mem_rtns_1 10000 24.1 723000.00 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
> mem_rtns_1 10020 22.7545 682634.73 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
> ^^^^^Slow, slow, slow...
>
> misc_rtns_1 10000 782.2 7822.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
> misc_rtns_1 10000 706 7060.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
> misc_rtns_1 10000 686.9 6869.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
> ^^^^ Slow too...
>
> shared_memory 10000 2227.4 222740.00 Shared Memory Operations/second
> shared_memory 10000 1973.1 197310.00 Shared Memory Operations/second
> shared_memory 10000 1955.2 195520.00 Shared Memory Operations/second
> ^^^^Slow, slow, slow...
And possibly those three as well, though I'm less sure.
Thanks,
M.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63
@ 2003-03-01 12:47 Paolo Ciarrocchi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Ciarrocchi @ 2003-03-01 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin J. Bligh, ciarrocchi, linux-kernel; +Cc: akpm
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:16:16 -0800
To: Paolo Ciarrocchi <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63
[...]
> Could you compare 63 mainline to -mjb or -mm with objrmap patches in?
> I think you'll get significant improvements on the tests above.
Of course I can.
And here it goes the results:
2.4.19
2.5.63
2.5.63-mjb2
creat-clo 10040 19.4223 19422.31 File Creations and Closes/second
creat-clo 10010 84.3157 84315.68 File Creations and Closes/second
creat-clo 10000 87.4 87400.00 File Creations and Closes/second
^^^mjb2 is faster than 2.5.63
brk_test 10010 48.951 832167.83 System Memory Allocations/second
brk_test 10020 41.018 697305.39 System Memory Allocations/second
brk_test 10000 41.3 702100.00 System Memory Allocations/second
^^^Still slower than 2.4.19
signal_test 10000 166.1 166100.00 Signal Traps/second
signal_test 10000 148.3 148300.00 Signal Traps/second
signal_test 10010 151.748 151748.25 Signal Traps/second
^^^Still slower than 2.4.19
exec_test 10000 13.8 69.00 Program Loads/second
exec_test 10020 12.7745 63.87 Program Loads/second
exec_test 10010 12.987 64.94 Program Loads/second
^^^Still slower than 2.4.19
fork_test 10000 44.8 4480.00 Task Creations/second
fork_test 10000 23.2 2320.00 Task Creations/second
fork_test 10020 30.0399 3003.99 Task Creations/second
^^^mjb2 is faster than 2.5.63
link_test 10000 155.3 9783.90 Link/Unlink Pairs/second
link_test 10010 160.739 10126.57 Link/Unlink Pairs/second
link_test 10010 150.25 9465.73 Link/Unlink Pairs/second
^^^mmh... strange
array_rtns 10010 13.6863 273.73 Linear Systems Solved/second
array_rtns 10020 11.2774 225.55 Linear Systems Solved/second
array_rtns 10050 13.5323 270.65 Linear Systems Solved/second
^^^^^^mjb2 is faster than 2.5.63
mem_rtns_1 10000 27.7 831000.00 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
mem_rtns_1 10020 22.7545 682634.73 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
mem_rtns_1 10020 25.0499 751497.01 Dynamic Memory Operations/second
^^^mjb2 is faster than 2.5.63
misc_rtns_1 10000 782.2 7822.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
misc_rtns_1 10000 686.9 6869.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
misc_rtns_1 10000 709.7 7097.00 Auxiliary Loops/second
^^^mjb2 is faster than 2.5.63
dgram_pipe 10000 2357.8 235780.00 DataGram Pipe Messages/second
dgram_pipe 10000 1978 197800.00 DataGram Pipe Messages/second
dgram_pipe 10000 2078.1 207810.00 DataGram Pipe Messages/second
^^^mjb2 is faster than 2.5.63
Let me know if you need further tests/information.
Ciao,
Paolo
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-03-01 12:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-02-27 21:39 [BENCHMARK] AIM9 results. 2.4.19 vs 2.5.58 vs 2.5.63 Paolo Ciarrocchi
2003-02-27 22:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-03-01 12:47 Paolo Ciarrocchi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox