public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.42-mm2 contest results
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 21:27:47 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200210132128.13752.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Here are the surprisingly different results from 2.5.42-mm2 with the contest 
benchmark (http://contest.kolivas.net). This was run with pagetable sharing 
enabled. Older results hidden for clarity.

noload:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
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

Didn't believe it the first time so I ran it twice more and ran 2.5.42 again 
to make sure something didn't change on my machine, but definitely this was 
slower than 2.5.42. When the kernel compile starts on the flushed ram machine 
with no background load a lot more disk activity seems to occur for the first 
five or so seconds compared to other kernels. I'm not sure if this is related 
to the way the memory and swap is flushed prior to the test or just this 
kernel. This may have affected all the following results too.

process_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
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

Slower again, without an increase in the loads.

ctar_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
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

Slower; lack resolution of number of loads makes it difficult to determine if 
it's significant. Same with a few of the other loads below.

xtar_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
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

Close to 2.5.41-mm3. Not enough runs to show if it is significant

io_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
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

This is showing an improvement with some of the better io load results shown 
by a 2.5 kernel.

read_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
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

list_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
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

mem_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
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

Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9qVizF6dfvkL3i1gRAm+/AJ9RTjhAPz+YeDa4kNyLgR2t3b8prACfQoAk
tb39kuDH4F9N7ROqwWl6RHU=
=/aJT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


             reply	other threads:[~2002-10-13 11:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-10-13 11:27 Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-10-13 20:53 ` [BENCHMARK] 2.5.42-mm2 contest results Andrew Morton

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=200210132128.13752.conman@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