Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm7 with contest

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

Con Kolivas wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks using the osdl 
>(http://www.osdl.org) hardware comparing mm7
>
>no_load:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       79      94.9    0       0.0     1.00
>2.5.59-mm6      1       78      96.2    0       0.0     1.00
>2.5.59-mm7      5       78      96.2    0       0.0     1.00
>cacherun:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       76      98.7    0       0.0     0.96
>2.5.59-mm6      1       76      97.4    0       0.0     0.97
>2.5.59-mm7      5       75      98.7    0       0.0     0.96
>process_load:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       92      81.5    28      16.3    1.16
>2.5.59-mm6      1       92      81.5    25      15.2    1.18
>2.5.59-mm7      4       90      82.2    25      18.3    1.15
>ctar_load:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       98      80.6    2       5.1     1.24
>2.5.59-mm6      3       112     70.5    2       4.5     1.44
>2.5.59-mm7      5       96      80.2    1       3.4     1.23
>xtar_load:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       101     75.2    1       4.0     1.28
>2.5.59-mm6      3       115     66.1    1       4.3     1.47
>2.5.59-mm7      5       96      79.2    0       3.3     1.23
>io_load:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       153     50.3    8       13.7    1.94
>2.5.59-mm6      2       90      83.3    2       6.7     1.15
>2.5.59-mm7      5       110     68.2    2       6.4     1.41
>read_load:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       102     76.5    5       4.9     1.29
>2.5.59-mm6      3       733     10.8    56      6.3     9.40
>2.5.59-mm7      4       90      84.4    1       1.3     1.15
>list_load:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       95      80.0    0       6.3     1.20
>2.5.59-mm6      3       97      79.4    0       6.2     1.24
>2.5.59-mm7      4       94      80.9    0       6.4     1.21
>mem_load:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       97      80.4    56      2.1     1.23
>2.5.59-mm6      3       94      83.0    50      2.1     1.21
>2.5.59-mm7      4       92      82.6    45      1.4     1.18
>dbench_load:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       126     60.3    3       22.2    1.59
>2.5.59-mm6      3       122     61.5    3       25.4    1.56
>2.5.59-mm7      4       121     62.0    2       24.8    1.55
>io_other:
>Kernel     [runs]       Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.59          3       89      84.3    2       5.5     1.13
>2.5.59-mm6      2       90      83.3    2       6.7     1.15
>2.5.59-mm7      3       90      83.3    2       5.6     1.15
>
>Seems the fix for "reads starves everything" works. Affected the tar loads 
>too?
>
Yes, at the cost of throughput, however for now it is probably
the best way to go. Hopefully anticipatory scheduling will provide
as good or better kernel compile times and better throughput.

Con, tell me, are "Loads" normalised to the time they run for?
Is it possible to get a finer grain result for the load tests?

Thanks
Nick