* [BENCHMARK] 2.5.53-mm1 with contest
@ 2002-12-26 8:34 Con Kolivas
2002-12-26 9:41 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2002-12-26 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux kernel mailing list; +Cc: Andrew Morton
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here are some contest results for 2.5.53-mm1 with osdl hardware:
Share pagetables is on.
Uniprocessor:
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 70.2 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 74.7 96 0 0 1.12
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 74.6 96 0 0 1.12
2.5.53 [7] 70.1 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 71.0 96 0 0 1.06
The slowdown that occurred noload and cacherun at 2.5.52-mm1/2 seems to have
gone away. I have NFI why it happened. Probably just a hardware anomaly at
the time unless someone else noticed it also?
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 67.5 99 0 0 1.01
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 71.9 99 0 0 1.08
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 72.0 99 0 0 1.08
2.5.53 [7] 67.6 99 0 0 1.01
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 68.5 99 0 0 1.03
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 84.4 79 17 19 1.26
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 91.0 79 18 19 1.36
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 90.3 79 18 19 1.35
2.5.53 [7] 86.9 77 18 21 1.30
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 117.1 58 47 40 1.75
Big change in the balance here in process_load. Probably a better balance
really given that process_load runs 4*num_cpus processes, and the kernel
compile is make -j (4*num_cpus)
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 109.8 81 2 8 1.64
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 112.2 81 3 9 1.68
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 109.6 81 2 9 1.64
2.5.53 [7] 107.4 81 3 9 1.61
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 103.1 79 3 10 1.54
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 161.4 69 3 8 2.42
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 127.9 70 2 7 1.92
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 125.0 70 2 7 1.87
2.5.53 [7] 151.0 69 3 8 2.26
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 150.2 66 2 7 2.25
Seems to correlate with 2.5.53 vanilla time here instead of the mm* of the
past
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 120.9 60 13 12 1.81
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 143.9 55 18 13 2.16
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 129.3 61 14 12 1.94
2.5.53 [7] 113.9 63 12 12 1.71
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 133.1 57 23 17 1.99
Whereas this correlates with mm*
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 94.9 76 7 10 1.42
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 115.5 67 11 11 1.73
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 93.3 79 7 9 1.40
2.5.53 [7] 99.5 73 8 10 1.49
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 107.7 70 18 17 1.61
Slightly longer time here with significantly more loads done.
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 88.1 80 15 7 1.32
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 97.0 78 15 6 1.45
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 93.6 80 15 6 1.40
2.5.53 [7] 88.2 80 15 6 1.32
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 89.6 80 12 6 1.34
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 81.0 86 0 9 1.21
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 86.8 85 0 9 1.30
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 86.3 85 0 9 1.29
2.5.53 [7] 81.5 85 0 9 1.22
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 82.1 85 0 9 1.23
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [3] 100.0 78 45 2 1.50
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 117.5 69 45 1 1.76
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 108.0 77 46 2 1.62
2.5.53 [7] 98.7 80 44 2 1.48
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 110.9 67 41 1 1.66
The SMP results seem to fluctuate too much between runs even with the average
of 7 runs. I'm wondering whether I should even bother with them any more as
they dont add any useful information as far as I can see. Comments on this
would be appreciated. Andrew?
SMP Results:
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 39.3 181 0 0 1.09
2.5.52-mm1 [8] 39.7 180 0 0 1.10
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 39.2 181 0 0 1.08
2.5.53 [7] 39.4 181 0 0 1.09
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 40.2 181 0 0 1.11
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 36.5 194 0 0 1.01
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 36.9 194 0 0 1.02
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 36.5 194 0 0 1.01
2.5.53 [7] 36.6 194 0 0 1.01
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 37.4 194 0 0 1.03
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 48.7 144 10 49 1.34
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 49.0 144 10 50 1.35
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 46.5 152 8 41 1.28
2.5.53 [7] 47.4 149 9 44 1.31
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 53.3 134 13 59 1.47
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 56.1 161 1 10 1.55
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 55.5 156 1 10 1.53
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 52.8 154 1 10 1.46
2.5.53 [7] 56.2 159 1 10 1.55
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 53.4 159 1 10 1.47
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 83.1 138 1 9 2.29
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 77.4 122 1 8 2.14
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 76.1 124 1 8 2.10
2.5.53 [7] 82.9 129 1 9 2.29
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 69.5 129 1 8 1.92
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 73.1 111 10 19 2.02
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 80.5 108 10 19 2.22
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 74.5 112 11 20 2.06
2.5.53 [7] 80.0 104 12 21 2.21
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 96.4 94 16 22 2.66
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 75.1 120 10 21 2.07
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 60.1 131 7 18 1.66
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 59.9 134 6 18 1.65
2.5.53 [7] 73.6 123 10 21 2.03
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 67.8 122 11 22 1.87
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 49.4 151 5 7 1.36
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 49.9 149 5 6 1.38
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 50.5 147 5 6 1.39
2.5.53 [7] 50.7 151 5 7 1.40
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 51.2 149 5 6 1.41
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 43.2 167 0 9 1.19
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 43.8 167 0 9 1.21
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 43.7 167 0 9 1.21
2.5.53 [7] 43.7 166 0 9 1.21
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 44.1 167 0 9 1.22
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52 [7] 63.5 148 38 3 1.75
2.5.52-mm1 [7] 71.1 123 36 2 1.96
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 66.0 141 39 3 1.82
2.5.53 [7] 63.2 144 37 3 1.75
2.5.53-mm1 [7] 82.6 105 35 2 2.28
The full archived results can be found here (you can see the variation between
results if you look at each load log eg io_load.log):
http://www.osdl.org/projects/ctdevel/results/
Cheers,
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+Cr8ZF6dfvkL3i1gRAirUAKCenx5t3ihTe8bbM9giwXg6pBBEjgCcDznd
JifHb2mieb8qCeQV3gbstuY=
=k6lg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.53-mm1 with contest
2002-12-26 8:34 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.53-mm1 with contest Con Kolivas
@ 2002-12-26 9:41 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-26 12:56 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2002-12-26 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: conman; +Cc: linux kernel mailing list
Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> ...
> process_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.5.52 [3] 84.4 79 17 19 1.26
> 2.5.52-mm1 [7] 91.0 79 18 19 1.36
> 2.5.52-mm2 [7] 90.3 79 18 19 1.35
> 2.5.53 [7] 86.9 77 18 21 1.30
> 2.5.53-mm1 [7] 117.1 58 47 40 1.75
> Big change in the balance here in process_load. Probably a better balance
> really given that process_load runs 4*num_cpus processes, and the kernel
> compile is make -j (4*num_cpus)
Presumably the run-child-first change. process_load is complex. I
haven't looked into its dynamics and I'm not sure what, if anything,
we can conclude from this test.
> ...
> The SMP results seem to fluctuate too much between runs even with the average
> of 7 runs. I'm wondering whether I should even bother with them any more as
> they dont add any useful information as far as I can see. Comments on this
> would be appreciated. Andrew?
Well for the sorts of things which you are interested in, SMP is not the
target market, shall we say?
Is the variability seen in other kernels (especially 2.4)? If not then
we'd need to find out what causes it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.53-mm1 with contest
2002-12-26 9:41 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2002-12-26 12:56 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2002-12-26 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux kernel mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 08:41 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > ...
> > process_load:
> > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > 2.5.52 [3] 84.4 79 17 19 1.26
> > 2.5.52-mm1 [7] 91.0 79 18 19 1.36
> > 2.5.52-mm2 [7] 90.3 79 18 19 1.35
> > 2.5.53 [7] 86.9 77 18 21 1.30
> > 2.5.53-mm1 [7] 117.1 58 47 40 1.75
> > Big change in the balance here in process_load. Probably a better balance
> > really given that process_load runs 4*num_cpus processes, and the kernel
> > compile is make -j (4*num_cpus)
>
> Presumably the run-child-first change. process_load is complex. I
> haven't looked into its dynamics and I'm not sure what, if anything,
> we can conclude from this test.
>
> > ...
> > The SMP results seem to fluctuate too much between runs even with the
> > average of 7 runs. I'm wondering whether I should even bother with them
> > any more as they dont add any useful information as far as I can see.
> > Comments on this would be appreciated. Andrew?
>
> Well for the sorts of things which you are interested in, SMP is not the
> target market, shall we say?
Agreed. Can't believe the initial UP v SMP results got slashdotted on
kerneltrap. I doubt anyone made any sense of them let alone made any useful
comment relating to them. I'll drop them in the interest of time and signal
to noise ratio.
> Is the variability seen in other kernels (especially 2.4)? If not then
> we'd need to find out what causes it.
A run through previous tests and a fresh run with vanilla 2.4.20 shows just as
much variation. It seems to be more a function of SMP rather than 2.5.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+CvyMF6dfvkL3i1gRAteoAKCqRu111T5ikGuYcUl4C7FgCjPvBgCfcUU7
gTiMlZxKT5KxjYDg+GeejkE=
=DbYb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-12-26 12:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-12-26 8:34 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.53-mm1 with contest Con Kolivas
2002-12-26 9:41 ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-26 12:56 ` Con Kolivas
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox