[BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest

[BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest

[Con Kolivas]

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

Here are contest results (http://contest.kolivas.net) for 2.5.51 and related 
kerneles using the dedicated osdl (http://www.osdl.org) hardware. 

Uniprocessor:
noload:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              70.0    96      0       0       1.05
2.5.50 [5]              69.9    96      0       0       1.05
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          71.4    94      0       0       1.07
2.5.51 [2]              69.8    96      0       0       1.05

cacherun:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              67.4    99      0       0       1.01
2.5.50 [5]              67.3    99      0       0       1.01
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          67.8    99      0       0       1.02
2.5.51 [2]              67.2    99      0       0       1.01

process_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              85.2    79      17      20      1.28
2.5.50 [5]              84.8    79      17      19      1.27
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          86.6    78      18      20      1.30
2.5.51 [2]              85.2    79      17      20      1.28

dbench_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              210.5   37      2       50      3.15
2.5.50 [5]              189.2   40      2       49      2.83
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          243.3   34      2       51      3.64
2.5.51 [12]             195.8   39      2       50      2.93

ctar_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              106.1   82      2       9       1.59
2.5.50 [5]              107.5   81      3       9       1.61
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          88.0    83      1       4       1.32
2.5.51 [7]              107.0   81      3       9       1.60

xtar_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              184.8   70      3       8       2.77
2.5.50 [5]              189.5   61      4       9       2.84
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          104.9   70      1       6       1.57
2.5.51 [7]              163.7   67      3       8       2.45

io_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              127.4   57      14      13      1.91
2.5.50 [5]              142.6   54      19      14      2.14
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          174.2   46      24      15      2.61
2.5.51 [7]              125.6   58      14      12      1.88

io_other:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              97.4    75      7       11      1.46
2.5.50 [5]              106.9   69      10      11      1.60
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          101.8   70      9       11      1.52
2.5.51 [7]              105.1   69      9       11      1.57

read_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              88.2    80      15      6       1.32
2.5.50 [5]              88.5    80      15      7       1.33
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          86.6    80      3       2       1.30
2.5.51 [2]              88.4    80      15      7       1.32

list_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              81.4    85      0       8       1.22
2.5.50 [5]              81.2    85      0       8       1.22
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          82.4    84      0       7       1.23
2.5.51 [2]              80.8    85      0       8       1.21

mem_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              98.1    76      43      2       1.47
2.5.50 [5]              98.3    76      44      2       1.47
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          116.9   67      47      1       1.75
2.5.51 [7]              99.3    76      45      2       1.49

A little shorter compile times under io load and xtar load.


SMP:
noload:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [6]              39.3    181     0       0       1.09
2.5.50 [5]              39.3    180     0       0       1.09
2.5.50-mm1 [6]          39.4    181     0       0       1.09
2.5.51 [3]              39.6    180     0       0       1.09

cacherun:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [6]              36.6    194     0       0       1.01
2.5.50 [5]              36.5    194     0       0       1.01
2.5.50-mm1 [6]          36.6    194     0       0       1.01
2.5.51 [3]              36.5    195     0       0       1.01

process_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [6]              50.0    141     11      52      1.38
2.5.50 [5]              47.8    148     10      46      1.32
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          47.6    150     8       43      1.31
2.5.51 [3]              50.5    139     12      54      1.39

dbench_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              119.8   96      0       26      3.31
2.5.50 [5]              199.8   101     0       24      5.52
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          164.3   67      0       29      4.54
2.5.51 [7]              57.9    144     0       27      1.60

ctar_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              53.8    161     1       10      1.49
2.5.50 [5]              54.6    157     1       10      1.51
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          51.3    155     0       4       1.42
2.5.51 [7]              58.2    158     1       10      1.61

xtar_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              72.9    132     1       10      2.01
2.5.50 [5]              116.2   103     2       10      3.21
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          83.9    111     1       9       2.32
2.5.51 [7]              104.8   124     2       10      2.89

io_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              75.5    110     9       18      2.09
2.5.50 [5]              87.6    102     14      22      2.42
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          99.0    92      14      21      2.73
2.5.51 [7]              84.6    102     13      21      2.34

io_other:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              64.2    130     8       19      1.77
2.5.50 [5]              59.3    139     7       18      1.64
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          70.5    125     10      22      1.95
2.5.51 [7]              64.5    134     7       18      1.78

read_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              49.1    152     5       7       1.36
2.5.50 [5]              49.3    151     5       7       1.36
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          52.1    142     2       3       1.44
2.5.51 [3]              48.5    154     5       7       1.34

list_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              43.4    167     0       8       1.20
2.5.50 [5]              43.4    167     0       8       1.20
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          44.0    167     0       7       1.22
2.5.51 [3]              43.5    167     0       8       1.20

mem_load:
Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.5.49 [5]              62.5    145     35      3       1.73
2.5.50 [5]              63.3    141     36      3       1.75
2.5.50-mm1 [5]          67.1    126     39      3       1.85
2.5.51 [7]              62.6    148     38      3       1.73

The big difference in dbench_load in the SMP run is unusual but probably not 
as significant as it appears. This load seems to occasionally create 
pathological runs (probably the nature of running dbench as a load) and less 
pathological runs occured in 2.5.51.

Overall the difference b/w 2.5.50 and 2.5.51 is small

Full hardware details and log runs can be found when the web server syncs up 
at :
http://www.osdl.org/projects/ctdevel/results/

Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE99dOwF6dfvkL3i1gRAkPYAKCVDe5hR7DS5sxG0va8ORTL/zAbRACeKrFi
32Klz15x4YrENT7dyMXJUsM=
=Zdjj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest

[Stan Bubrouski]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Here are contest results (http://contest.kolivas.net) for 2.5.51 and related 
> kerneles using the dedicated osdl (http://www.osdl.org) hardware. 
> 
> Uniprocessor:
> noload:
> Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
> 2.5.49 [5]              70.0    96      0       0       1.05
> 2.5.50 [5]              69.9    96      0       0       1.05
> 2.5.50-mm1 [5]          71.4    94      0       0       1.07
> 2.5.51 [2]              69.8    96      0       0       1.05

I know this has been brought up before, but
these don't seem to mean much unless you
include 2.4.20 in the comaprison.

-Stan

Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest

[Robert Love]

On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 12:18, Stan Bubrouski wrote:

> I know this has been brought up before, but
> these don't seem to mean much unless you
> include 2.4.20 in the comaprison.

Comparing this to 2.4 achieves nothing because so much changed.

The point of these benchmarks are not marketing, but to find
improvements or regressions from one version to the next and find out
what caused them.

Comparing the kernel to 2.4 has some uses (i.e. finding micro-ops) but
Con's mission is much different (and imo more useful).

	Robert Love

Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest

[Stan Bubrouski]

Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 12:18, Stan Bubrouski wrote:
> 
> 
>>I know this has been brought up before, but
>>these don't seem to mean much unless you
>>include 2.4.20 in the comaprison.
> 
> 
> Comparing this to 2.4 achieves nothing because so much changed.

I disagree, 2.4.20 is the current stable kernel, it would
be nice to see how it compares to the current development,
what's faster, what's not... from Con's previous results
we can see that some things are indeed not as fast in 2.5.x
as in 2.4.x.  It's just nice to be able to see the whole
picture.  I often follow these threads for just this purpose.

-Stan

> 
> The point of these benchmarks are not marketing, but to find
> improvements or regressions from one version to the next and find out
> what caused them.
> 
> Comparing the kernel to 2.4 has some uses (i.e. finding micro-ops) but
> Con's mission is much different (and imo more useful).
> 
> 	Robert Love
> 

Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest

[Con Kolivas]

Quoting Stan Bubrouski <stan@ccs.neu.edu>:

> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Here are contest results (http://contest.kolivas.net) for 2.5.51 and
> related 
> > kerneles using the dedicated osdl (http://www.osdl.org) hardware. 
> > 
> > Uniprocessor:
> > noload:
> > Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
> > 2.5.49 [5]              70.0    96      0       0       1.05
> > 2.5.50 [5]              69.9    96      0       0       1.05
> > 2.5.50-mm1 [5]          71.4    94      0       0       1.07
> > 2.5.51 [2]              69.8    96      0       0       1.05
> 
> I know this has been brought up before, but
> these don't seem to mean much unless you
> include 2.4.20 in the comaprison.

Repeated benchmarks of each successive release allow to detect subtle
differences of each change. If contest shows these changes the people who can
act on them will see them clearly if displayed only with relevant results. If
you want previous results, a full comparison is available at the full logs of
all previous benchmarks as I mention.

http://www.osdl.org/projects/ctdevel/results/

Con

Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest

[Arador]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:02:26 -0500
Stan Bubrouski <stan@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:

> I disagree, 2.4.20 is the current stable kernel, it would
> be nice to see how it compares to the current development,
> what's faster, what's not... from Con's previous results
> we can see that some things are indeed not as fast in 2.5.x
> as in 2.4.x.  It's just nice to be able to see the whole
> picture.  I often follow these threads for just this purpose.

>From this point, if you compare 2.4 vs 2.5 you can just say:
It's faster or slower. Comparing 2.5 vs 2.5 gives you a picture
of what's gone better, and why. IMHO.


Diego Calleja

Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.51 with contest

[Robert Love]

On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:02, Stan Bubrouski wrote:

> I disagree, 2.4.20 is the current stable kernel, it would
> be nice to see how it compares to the current development,
> what's faster, what's not... from Con's previous results
> we can see that some things are indeed not as fast in 2.5.x
> as in 2.4.x.  It's just nice to be able to see the whole
> picture.  I often follow these threads for just this purpose.

Like I said, that may give users warm fuzzies or be helpful to marketing
folks but Con's benchmark is not really useful for _helping developers_
wrt comparing 2.4 vs 2.5.

A benchmark like AIM9, which is a bunch of micro-benchmarks, is useful
because we can say "look truncating a zero-length file is a lot slower
now".

But a contest result from 2.4 to 2.5 tells us what?  Especially since
lower times in contest may not even be bad.  Contest is invaluable for
testing one change vs. without.  In fact, I would venture to say Con's
work is a big reason why 2.5 has the fairness and interactive
performance it does.  But it is not so helpful to see changes since 2.4.

	Robert Love