From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Paolo Ciarrocchi <ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org>
Cc: conman@kolivas.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rmaureira@alumno.inacap.cl, rcastro@ime.usp.br
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] contest 0.50 results to date
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 12:15:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D9F3A52.4FB46701@digeo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20021005182850.31930.qmail@linuxmail.org
Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
>
> And here are my results:
> noload:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19 [3] 128.8 97 0 0 1.01
> 2.4.19-0.24pre4 [3] 127.4 98 0 0 0.99
> 2.5.40 [3] 134.4 96 0 0 1.05
> 2.5.40-nopree [3] 133.7 96 0 0 1.04
>
> process_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19 [3] 194.1 60 134 40 1.52
> 2.4.19-0.24pre4 [3] 193.2 60 133 40 1.51
> 2.5.40 [3] 184.5 70 53 31 1.44
> 2.5.40-nopree [3] 286.4 45 163 55 2.24
>
> io_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19 [3] 461.0 28 46 8 3.60
> 2.4.19-0.24pre4 [3] 235.4 55 26 10 1.84
> 2.5.40 [3] 293.6 45 25 8 2.29
> 2.5.40-nopree [3] 269.4 50 20 7 2.10
>
> mem_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.19 [3] 161.1 80 38 2 1.26
> 2.4.19-0.24pre4 [3] 181.2 76 253 19 1.41
> 2.5.40 [3] 163.0 80 34 2 1.27
> 2.5.40-nopree [3] 161.7 80 34 2 1.26
>
I think I'm going to have to be reminded what "Loads" and "LCPU"
mean, please.
For these sorts of tests, I think system-wide CPU% is an interesting
thing to track - both user and system. If it is high then we're doing
well - doing real work.
The same isn't necessarily true of the compressed-cache kernel, because
it's doing extra work in-kernel, so CPU load comparisons there need
to be made with some caution.
Apart from observing overall CPU occupancy, we also need to monitor
fairness - one way of doing that is to measure the total kernel build
elapsed time. Another way would be to observe how much actual progress
the streaming IO makes during the kernel build.
What is "2.4.19-0.24pre4"?
I'd suggest that more tests be added. Perhaps
- one competing streaming read
- several competing streaming reads
- competing "tar cf foo ./linux"
- competing "tar xf foo"
- competing "ls -lR > /dev/null"
It would be interesting to test -aa kernels as well - Andrea's kernels
tend to be well tuned.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-05 19:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-05 18:28 [BENCHMARK] contest 0.50 results to date Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-10-05 19:15 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-10-05 20:56 ` Rodrigo Souza de Castro
2002-10-06 1:03 ` Con Kolivas
2002-10-06 5:38 ` load additions to contest Con Kolivas
2002-10-06 6:11 ` Andrew Morton
2002-10-06 6:56 ` Con Kolivas
2002-10-06 12:07 ` Con Kolivas
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-05 19:28 [BENCHMARK] contest 0.50 results to date Paolo Ciarrocchi
2002-10-05 5:59 Con Kolivas
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=3D9F3A52.4FB46701@digeo.com \
--to=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org \
--cc=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rcastro@ime.usp.br \
--cc=rmaureira@alumno.inacap.cl \
/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