From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 01:00:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 01:00:34 -0500 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:5576 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 01:00:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 22:08:49 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Aniruddha M Marathe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] TIO bench result for 2.5.54 (poor performance) Message-ID: <20030103060849.GZ9704@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Aniruddha M Marathe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <94F20261551DC141B6B559DC491086720448C3@blr-m3-msg.wipro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <94F20261551DC141B6B559DC491086720448C3@blr-m3-msg.wipro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 11:32:21AM +0530, Aniruddha M Marathe wrote: > Here are the results of comparison of kernel 2.5.54 and 2.5.53. > on TIObench. key findings are listed in the table. Values in the > table indicate approximate percentage change with respect to previous > result. Please see the mail in full window to see the formatted results. Say, any chance you can say what hardware you ran this on, what kernel .config options, and keep lines to ca. 70 chars? Thanks, Bill