From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
Paolo Ciarrocchi <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>,
Robinson Maureira Castillo <rmaureira@alumno.inacap.cl>,
Rodrigo Souza de Castro <rcastro@ime.usp.br>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] contest 0.50 results to date
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 15:59:24 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200210051559.38887.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here are the updated contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks with
version 0.50
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 67.7 98 0 0 1.01
2.4.19-cc [3] 67.9 97 0 0 1.01
2.5.38 [3] 72.0 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.38-mm3 [2] 71.8 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.39 [2] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.39-mm1 [2] 72.3 93 0 0 1.08
2.5.40 [1] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08
2.5.40-mm1 [1] 72.9 93 0 0 1.09
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 106.5 59 112 43 1.59
2.4.19-cc [3] 105.0 59 110 42 1.56
2.5.38 [3] 89.5 74 34 28 1.33
2.5.38-mm3 [1] 86.0 78 29 25 1.28
2.5.39 [2] 91.2 73 36 28 1.36
2.5.39-mm1 [2] 92.0 73 37 29 1.37
2.5.40 [2] 82.8 80 25 23 1.23
2.5.40-mm1 [2] 86.9 77 30 25 1.29
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 492.6 14 38 10 7.33
2.4.19-cc [3] 156.0 48 12 10 2.32
2.5.38 [1] 4000.0 1 500 1 59.55
2.5.38-mm3 [1] 303.5 25 23 11 4.52
2.5.39 [2] 423.9 18 30 11 6.31
2.5.39-mm1 [2] 550.7 14 44 12 8.20
2.5.40 [1] 315.7 25 22 10 4.70
2.5.40-mm1 [1] 326.2 24 23 11 4.86
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 100.0 72 33 3 1.49
2.4.19-cc [3] 92.7 76 146 21 1.38
2.5.38 [3] 107.3 70 34 3 1.60
2.5.38-mm3 [1] 100.3 72 27 2 1.49
2.5.39 [2] 103.1 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.39-mm1 [2] 103.3 72 32 3 1.54
2.5.40 [2] 102.5 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.40-mm1 [2] 107.7 68 29 2 1.60
Note the io_load value for 2.5.38 was an estimate as every time I tried to run
it it took too long and I stopped it (the longest I waited was 4000 seconds);
showing very clearly the write starves read problem.
Of most interest is the performance of 2.4.19 with the latest version of
compressed cache under mem_load (2.4.19-cc). Note that although the
performance is only slightly better timewise, the difference in actual work
done by the background load during that time is _enormous_. This demonstrates
most clearly the limitations in previous versions of contest.
Comments?
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9nn+8F6dfvkL3i1gRApHxAJ9CANpp1CA+chu+DxEghiNXgP0VjwCfdHsm
qf7yp7W6sBOnkNx/cmTLPQY=
=7oEd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next reply other threads:[~2002-10-05 5:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-05 5:59 Con Kolivas [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-05 18:28 [BENCHMARK] contest 0.50 results to date Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-10-05 19:15 ` Andrew Morton
2002-10-05 20:56 ` Rodrigo Souza de Castro
2002-10-06 1:03 ` Con Kolivas
2002-10-05 19:28 Paolo Ciarrocchi
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=200210051559.38887.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rcastro@ime.usp.br \
--cc=rmaureira@alumno.inacap.cl \
/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