From: Nero <neroz@iinet.net.au>
To: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:34:54 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DE0D57E.8060203@iinet.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3DE0D157.9020906@iinet.net.au>
Con Kolivas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thanks for this interesting comparison
>
>
> >noload:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 84.6 95 0 0 1.00
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 84.2 96 0 0 1.00
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 41.0 49 0 0 inf
>
>
> Clearly my braindead parser failed here. The time of aa1 should
> probably be 82
> seconds (41.0 x 2) Can you check the full log of 2.4.20-rc1aa1.log ?
> It has
> raw results.
>
Yep.
noload Time: 81.95 CPU: 98% LoadRuns: 0 LoadCPU%: 0
>
> >process_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 140.8 55 133 45 1.66
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 139.4 56 126 45 1.65
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [2] 133.9 14 211 84 inf
>
>
> If the error continued here (2 runs of process_load) then the time of aa1
> should be 133.9 x 2. Can you check the full log of 2.4.20-rc1aa1.log here
> too?
process_load Time: 267.85 CPU: 29% LoadRuns: 422 LoadCPU%: 70%
>
>
> >io_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 164.8 51 33 19 1.95
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 160.1 53 33 21 1.90
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 166.2 49 44 23 inf
> >
> >read_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 0.0 0 0 7 0.00
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 121.0 72 20 7 1.44
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 111.2 79 34 14 inf
> >
> >rmap15 OOM'd the cc1 process twice and fscked this run up.
> >
> >list_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 99.2 84 0 7 1.17
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 100.7 83 0 7 1.20
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 96.7 85 0 8 inf
> >
> >mem_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.4.19-rmap15 [1] 111.2 80 96 8 1.31
> >2.4.19-rmap14c [1] 106.1 82 96 9 1.26
> >2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 126.3 66 77 3 inf
>
>
> With only one run these numbers appear not to be greatly statistically
> significant, except for the mem_load results.
>
> Con
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE94NTSF6dfvkL3i1gRAkwXAJ9YJmnxvxdiYyESNYLeQa9sbwR+2wCcCZal
> bFKWReK3EP8oayP/GwiIK7c=
> =gYaS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-24 13:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-24 13:17 [BENCHMARK] rmap15, rmap14c and rc1aa1 with contest Nero
2002-11-24 13:23 ` Nero
2002-11-24 13:32 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-24 13:34 ` Nero [this message]
2002-11-24 17:39 ` Rik van Riel
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=3DE0D57E.8060203@iinet.net.au \
--to=neroz@iinet.net.au \
--cc=conman@kolivas.net \
--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