Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm7 with contest

[Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>]

> >I found the following is how loads occur almost always:
> >noload time: 60
> >load time kernal a: 80, loads 20
> >load time kernel b: 100, loads 40
> >load time kernel c: 90, loads 30
> >
> >and loads/total time wouldnt show this effect as kernel c would appear to
> > have a better load rate
>
> Kernel a would have a rate of .25 l/s, b: .4 l/s, c: .33~ l/s so I b would
> be better.

Err yeah thats what I mean sorry. What I'm getting at is notice they all do it 
at 1/second regardless. It's only the scheduling balance that has changed 
rather than the rate of work.

> >if there was
> >load time kernel d: 80, loads 40
> >
> >that would be more significant no?
>
> It would, yes... but it would measure .5 loads per second done.
>
> The noload time is basically constant anyway so I don't think it would add
> much value if it were incorporated into the results, but would make the
> metric harder to follow than simple "loads per second".

At the moment total loads tells the full story either way so for now I'm 
sticking to that.

Con