From: Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
Phy Prabab <phyprabab@yahoo.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Help understanding slow down
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 03:25:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040524012553.GG30687@unthought.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040524010455.GJ1833@holomorphy.com>
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 06:04:55PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:57:51PM -0700, Phy Prabab wrote:
> > Just for more clarification, here is a perfect
> > example:
> > 2.6.7-p1:
> > 24.86user 51.77system 2:58.87elapsed 42%CPU
> > (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> > 0inputs+0outputs (13major+7591686minor)pagefaults
> > 0swaps
> > 2.4.21:
> > 28.68user 34.98system 1:12.34elapsed 87%CPU
> > (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> > 0inputs+0outputs (5691267major+1130523minor)pagefaults
> > 0swaps
>
> Thanks. This reveals that the performance regression is system time.
Eh, not if I read the numbers right:
2.6.7-p1: 24.86user 51.77system 2:58.87elapsed 42%CPU
24.86 + 51.77 = 76.63 seconds on CPU, 102.24 seconds of waiting
2.4.21: 28.68user 34.98system 1:12.34elapsed 87%CPU
28.68 + 34.98 = 63.66 seconds on CPU, 8.68 seconds of waiting
So, 2.6.7-p1 spends 16.79 seconds more in the kernel as you observed,
but it spends 93.56 seconds more waiting for I/O (or whatever).
Unless I'm totally missing something, the wait seems to be the
regression.
/ jakob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-24 1:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-24 0:32 Help understanding slow down Phy Prabab
2004-05-24 0:57 ` Phy Prabab
2004-05-24 1:04 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-05-24 1:25 ` Jakob Oestergaard [this message]
2004-05-24 1:28 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-05-24 1:51 ` Phy Prabab
2004-05-24 2:42 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-24 2:43 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-24 6:23 ` Phy Prabab
2004-05-24 6:27 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-05-24 6:39 ` Phy Prabab
2004-05-24 7:21 ` Phy Prabab
2004-05-24 7:44 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-24 7:50 ` Phy Prabab
2004-05-24 7:59 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-24 10:43 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2004-05-24 14:13 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-05-24 7:53 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-24 8:00 ` Phy Prabab
2004-05-25 10:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-25 9:29 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-25 11:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-25 9:58 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-25 12:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 6:33 ` Paul Rolland
2004-05-24 17:28 ` Roger Luethi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-05-24 1:37 Robert M. Stockmann
2004-05-24 1:50 ` Phy Prabab
2004-05-24 3:31 ` Robert M. Stockmann
2004-05-24 6:14 ` Phy Prabab
2004-05-24 18:36 ` Robert M. Stockmann
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=20040524012553.GG30687@unthought.net \
--to=jakob@unthought.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phyprabab@yahoo.com \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/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