From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.40-mm1 with contest
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:28:44 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200212042028.48710.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20021204094315.pochini@shiny.it>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:43 pm, Giuliano Pochini wrote:
> On 03-Dec-2002 Con Kolivas wrote:
> > UP results
> >
> > process_load:
> > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > 2.4.20 [5] 108.1 58 84 40 1.62
> > 2.5.50-mm1 [5] 86.6 78 18 20 1.30
>
> Hm, load task gets half cpu time, but it goes 5 times slower
> in 2.5.x. Why ? You can see a similar behaviour in other
> tests too.
You have to dig deeper to understand why. The time taken to compile the kernel
takes a fixed amount of cpu time. In the presence of a load, it takes longer
in wall clock time, but still takes about the same amount of cpu time. The
amount of extra wall clock time will basically be used for the load,
scheduling, io etc. Now the absolute extra wall clock time it takes to
compile the kernel in this load is time it can also be doing the load.
Therefore, if I spend 20 seconds longer to compile the kernel while the load
is running, the load must also get 20 seconds where it can be doing it's
work. Assuming it does 1 load per second, it will do 20 loads. If it takes 40
seconds longer to compile the kernel, the load gets 40 seconds longer; hence
it can do 40 loads.
Look at the example above and you'll see those numbers. It takes 20 seconds
longer in 2.5.50-mm1 compared to noload, and load gets to do 20 workloads.
2.4.20 takes 40 seconds longer and gets to do 40 workloads. If you take into
account the work done / time they are doing workloads at about the same rate.
Now if one had taken 20 seconds longer than the other and done only the same
amount of work it would be showing serious inefficiencies over and above the
fair scheduling issues which contest is really trying to measure.
Hmm. Not sure if I made that clear enough, but hopefully I got my point
across.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE97crOF6dfvkL3i1gRAhdzAKCX8vlHqLQUm+MnzsGAjzP7UPJB4ACbB4um
XyNURkBWQwIC7xAvgkTwmpY=
=4mwU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-04 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-03 22:08 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.40-mm1 with contest Con Kolivas
2002-12-04 8:43 ` Giuliano Pochini
2002-12-04 9:28 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
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=200212042028.48710.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pochini@shiny.it \
/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