* [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest
@ 2003-02-16 9:46 Con Kolivas
2003-02-16 9:51 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2003-02-16 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Jens Axboe, Nick Piggin
Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl
(http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o
scheduler or the cfq scheduler.
no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.61 1 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.61-mm1 3 81 91.4 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 75 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.95
2.5.61 1 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.96
2.5.61-mm1 3 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.94
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.96
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 91 78.0 32.3 18.7 1.15
2.5.61 1 93 80.6 29.0 16.1 1.18
2.5.61-mm1 3 179 41.9 178.0 57.0 2.21
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 188 39.9 196.7 59.0 2.38
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 98 79.6 1.0 4.1 1.24
2.5.61 2 100 79.0 1.0 4.0 1.27
2.5.61-mm1 2 137 58.4 2.0 5.8 1.69
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 104 76.0 1.0 3.8 1.32
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 108 70.4 1.0 3.7 1.37
2.5.61 2 102 75.5 1.0 4.9 1.29
2.5.61-mm1 2 158 48.7 2.0 4.4 1.95
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 104 74.0 1.0 3.8 1.32
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42
2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81
2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 89 84.3 10.5 5.6 1.13
2.5.61 2 91 82.4 11.1 5.5 1.15
2.5.61-mm1 2 187 41.7 84.7 27.3 2.31
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 199 39.2 77.2 23.5 2.52
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 93 81.7 2.8 2.2 1.18
2.5.61 2 102 77.5 6.3 4.9 1.29
2.5.61-mm1 2 120 65.8 8.9 5.8 1.48
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 109 72.5 7.1 5.5 1.38
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 96 79.2 0.0 6.2 1.22
2.5.61 2 95 81.1 0.0 6.3 1.20
2.5.61-mm1 2 97 79.4 0.0 6.2 1.20
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 97 79.4 0.0 6.2 1.23
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 95 82.1 51.7 2.1 1.20
2.5.61 1 96 81.2 54.0 2.1 1.22
2.5.61-mm1 2 128 61.7 72.0 2.3 1.58
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 117 66.7 61.0 1.7 1.48
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.61 2 237 32.5 3.0 47.3 3.00
2.5.61-mm1 2 716 10.8 11.0 50.4 8.84
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 426 18.1 5.7 50.7 5.39
So we're getting into a situation where 2.6 will have either server or desktop
tuning? I guess if one can't fit all (ideal) then this is a good compromise.
What I don't understand is why the anticipatory scheduler takes longer to
compile a kernel without any load running? This happened with previous tests
of the as scheduler too.
Con
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest
2003-02-16 9:46 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest Con Kolivas
@ 2003-02-16 9:51 ` Jens Axboe
2003-02-16 9:53 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2003-02-16 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Con Kolivas; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Nick Piggin
On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl
> (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o
> scheduler or the cfq scheduler.
>
> io_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42
> 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81
> 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83
> 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03
These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently
beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and
not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest
2003-02-16 9:51 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2003-02-16 9:53 ` Con Kolivas
2003-02-16 9:59 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2003-02-16 9:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Nick Piggin
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:51 pm, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl
> > (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o
> > scheduler or the cfq scheduler.
> >
> > io_load:
> > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42
> > 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81
> > 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83
> > 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03
>
> These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently
> beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and
> not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there.
I dont think they're fishy - taken in the mm1 context -. I have tested cfq3a
without mm1 and it does beat the baseline. See a previous email I posted with
it.
Con
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest
2003-02-16 9:53 ` Con Kolivas
@ 2003-02-16 9:59 ` Jens Axboe
2003-02-16 10:43 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2003-02-16 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Con Kolivas; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Nick Piggin
On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:51 pm, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl
> > > (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o
> > > scheduler or the cfq scheduler.
> > >
> > > io_load:
> > > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > > 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42
> > > 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81
> > > 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83
> > > 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03
> >
> > These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently
> > beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and
> > not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there.
>
> I dont think they're fishy - taken in the mm1 context -. I have tested cfq3a
> without mm1 and it does beat the baseline. See a previous email I posted with
> it.
I didn't mean that you have done something fishy, but that there's a
fishy interaction between -mm + CFQ :)
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest
2003-02-16 9:59 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2003-02-16 10:43 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-16 10:45 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2003-02-16 10:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: kernel, linux-kernel, piggin
Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:51 pm, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl
> > > > (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o
> > > > scheduler or the cfq scheduler.
> > > >
> > > > io_load:
> > > > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > > > 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42
> > > > 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81
> > > > 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83
> > > > 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03
> > >
> > > These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently
> > > beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and
> > > not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there.
> >
> > I dont think they're fishy - taken in the mm1 context -. I have tested cfq3a
> > without mm1 and it does beat the baseline. See a previous email I posted with
> > it.
>
> I didn't mean that you have done something fishy, but that there's a
> fishy interaction between -mm + CFQ :)
>
It is the CPU scheduler patch. Con has eariler shown that this patch shoots
io_load in the head. 2.5.60-mm1 did not have that patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest
2003-02-16 10:43 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2003-02-16 10:45 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2003-02-16 10:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: kernel, linux-kernel, piggin
On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:51 pm, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl
> > > > > (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o
> > > > > scheduler or the cfq scheduler.
> > > > >
> > > > > io_load:
> > > > > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > > > > 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42
> > > > > 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81
> > > > > 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83
> > > > > 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03
> > > >
> > > > These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently
> > > > beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and
> > > > not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there.
> > >
> > > I dont think they're fishy - taken in the mm1 context -. I have tested cfq3a
> > > without mm1 and it does beat the baseline. See a previous email I posted with
> > > it.
> >
> > I didn't mean that you have done something fishy, but that there's a
> > fishy interaction between -mm + CFQ :)
> >
>
> It is the CPU scheduler patch. Con has eariler shown that this patch shoots
> io_load in the head. 2.5.60-mm1 did not have that patch.
and process_load, and dbench_load :)
Thanks, makes sense.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-02-16 10:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-02-16 9:46 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest Con Kolivas
2003-02-16 9:51 ` Jens Axboe
2003-02-16 9:53 ` Con Kolivas
2003-02-16 9:59 ` Jens Axboe
2003-02-16 10:43 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-16 10:45 ` Jens Axboe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox