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-----
next 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