From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.74-mm1 with contest
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 01:32:55 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200307040132.55827.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
Here are contest benchmarks for 2.5.74-mm1 with my scheduler tweaks:
no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 1 77 94.8 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.74 1 79 93.7 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.74-mm1 1 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 1 75 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.97
2.5.74 1 75 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.95
2.5.74-mm1 1 76 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.96
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 2 108 67.6 67.0 29.6 1.40
2.5.74 2 109 67.9 65.0 28.4 1.38
2.5.74-mm1 2 106 69.8 60.0 28.3 1.34
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 3 103 74.8 0.0 0.0 1.34
2.5.74 3 104 75.0 0.0 0.0 1.32
2.5.74-mm1 3 109 72.5 1.0 5.5 1.38
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 3 113 66.4 2.0 4.4 1.47
2.5.74 3 106 72.6 1.0 3.8 1.34
2.5.74-mm1 3 123 61.8 2.0 4.8 1.56
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 4 127 59.1 39.7 16.5 1.65
2.5.74 4 331 23.9 117.5 18.7 4.19
2.5.74-mm1 4 122 63.1 44.6 19.7 1.54
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 2 112 67.9 43.0 19.6 1.45
2.5.74 2 121 64.5 50.8 22.1 1.53
2.5.74-mm1 2 118 65.3 51.2 24.6 1.49
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 2 100 76.0 7.8 7.0 1.30
2.5.74 2 104 76.0 6.6 4.8 1.32
2.5.74-mm1 2 106 74.5 8.3 6.6 1.34
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 2 93 80.6 0.0 7.5 1.21
2.5.74 2 97 79.4 0.0 7.2 1.23
2.5.74-mm1 2 94 81.9 0.0 7.4 1.19
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 2 114 68.4 54.0 1.8 1.48
2.5.74 2 97 80.4 59.5 2.0 1.23
2.5.74-mm1 2 99 79.8 51.5 2.0 1.25
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.73-mm1 4 365 20.8 5.0 48.2 4.74
2.5.74 4 334 23.1 5.0 52.7 4.23
2.5.74-mm1 4 255 30.2 5.0 42.0 3.23
A little more here, a little less there. No major changes except for dbench
load which appears to have significantly shorter compile times. As kernel
compiles are not by their nature "interactive", these results are expected.
It is nice to see that it doesn't appear to starve any load unecessarily as
well.
Contest can show the kernel's ability to perform in the setting of different
loads without being choked, but will not show if your audio application will
get to play when it wants to, nor whether your windows will move around the
screen smoothly.
Con
P.S. Does anyone see the irony in the fact that my own benchmark won't show
that my patch does anything?
next reply other threads:[~2003-07-03 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-07-03 15:32 Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-07-04 1:08 ` [BENCHMARK] 2.5.74-mm1 with contest jw schultz
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=200307040132.55827.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.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