public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: anticipatory scheduling questions
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:24:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030227222440.14610.qmail@linuxmail.org> (raw)

Hello, 
 
I have just installed 2.5.63-mm1 on my system and have been performing a very simple benchmarks. Here are 
my first results when compared against a RedHat 2.4.20-2.54 kernel: 
 
(All times expressed as total times) 
 
1. time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/p bs=1024k count=256 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m12.737s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m17.704s 
 
2. time cp /tmp/p /tmp/q 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m41.108s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m51.939s 
 
3. time cmp /tmp/p /tmp/q 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 1m7.349s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m58.966s 
 
4. time cmp /dev/zero /tmp/q 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m17.965s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m14.038s 
 
The question is, why, apparently, is anticipatory scheduling perfomring worse than 2.4.20? Indeed, this can be 
tested interactively with an application like Evolution: I have configured Evolution to use 2 dictionaries (English 
and Spanish) for spell checking in e-mail messages. When running 2.4.20, if I choose to reply to a large 
message, it only takes a few seconds to read both dictionaries from disk and perform the spell checking. 
However, on 2.5.63-mm1 the same process takes considerably longer. Any reason for this? 
 
Thanks! 
 
Best regards, 
 
   Felipe Alfaro Solana 
 
-- 
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr

Powered by Outblaze

             reply	other threads:[~2003-02-27 22:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-27 22:24 Felipe Alfaro Solana [this message]
2003-02-27 23:26 ` anticipatory scheduling questions Andrew Morton
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-28 12:18 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-28 12:44 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-28 14:38 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-28 19:14 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-28 23:12 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-28 23:16 ` Andrew Morton
2003-03-01 10:25 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-03-01 10:40 ` Andrew Morton
2003-03-01 11:51   ` David Lang
2003-03-01 17:15     ` Alan Cox
     [not found] <fa.g5ol5kg.cgoq0g@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.hp882fv.1u0orj9@ifi.uio.no>
2003-03-01 12:48   ` Ed Tomlinson
2003-03-01 14:48 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-03-02 11:40 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-03-02 20:43 ` Andrew Morton
2003-03-02 21:50 Felipe Alfaro Solana

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=20030227222440.14610.qmail@linuxmail.org \
    --to=felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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