From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Benchmark] Contest 0.51
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 07:18:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021012231841.8863.qmail@linuxmail.org> (raw)
Hi all,
here the contest results:
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 128.8 97 0 0 1.01
2.5.40 [3] 134.4 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.40-nopree [3] 133.7 96 0 0 1.04
2.5.41 [3] 136.5 96 0 0 1.07
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 134.8 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.42 [3] 134.8 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 135.5 96 0 0 1.06
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 194.1 60 134 40 1.52
2.5.40 [3] 184.5 70 53 31 1.44
2.5.40-nopree [3] 286.4 45 163 55 2.24
2.5.41 [3] 192.6 68 59 32 1.50
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 193.4 66 68 34 1.51
2.5.42 [3] 187.6 68 58 32 1.46
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 186.0 69 60 31 1.45
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 461.0 28 46 8 3.60
2.5.40 [3] 293.6 45 25 8 2.29
2.5.40-nopree [3] 269.4 50 20 7 2.10
2.5.41 [3] 342.7 41 34 9 2.68
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 251.1 54 21 8 1.96
2.5.42 [3] 304.5 45 28 9 2.38
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 254.6 53 20 8 1.99
It seems useful to me add a colum with CPU%+LCPU%.
It is intersting to notice that 2.5.41 spend 41+9=50% CPU time
for compiling and for the io_load while 2.5.42 spend 45+9=54%
time. Can I say that 2.5.42 is "better" than 2.5.41 ?
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.42 [3] 162.3 82 10 4 1.27
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 162.5 82 10 4 1.27
No difference here.
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.42 [3] 154.2 85 0 6 1.20
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 155.1 85 0 6 1.21
No difference here.
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 161.1 80 38 2 1.26
2.5.40 [3] 163.0 80 34 2 1.27
2.5.40-nopree [3] 161.7 80 34 2 1.26
2.5.41 [3] 161.0 83 33 2 1.26
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 229.9 57 35 1 1.80
2.5.42 [3] 157.9 83 33 2 1.23
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 162.2 81 33 2 1.27
No difference here.
Comments ?
Paolo
--
Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org
Powered by Outblaze
next reply other threads:[~2002-10-12 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-12 23:18 Paolo Ciarrocchi [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-12 23:49 [Benchmark] Contest 0.51 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=20021012231841.8863.qmail@linuxmail.org \
--to=ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org \
--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