Re: [BENCHMARK] 100Hz v 1000Hz with contest

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

Well thats nice, AS holds up OK...

Con Kolivas wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>I've attempted to answer the question does 1000Hz hurt responsiveness in 2.5 
>as much as I've found in 2.4; since subjectively the difference wasn't there 
>in 2.5. Using the same config with preempt enabled here are results from 
>2.5.70-mm3 set at default 1000Hz and at 100Hz (mm31):
>
>no_load:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          1   79      94.9    0.0     0.0     1.00
>2.5.70-mm31         1   77      94.8    0.0     0.0     1.00
>cacherun:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          1   76      97.4    0.0     0.0     0.96
>2.5.70-mm31         1   74      98.6    0.0     0.0     0.96
>process_load:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          2   108     68.5    64.5    28.7    1.37
>2.5.70-mm31         2   107     69.2    67.0    29.0    1.39
>ctar_load:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          3   114     70.2    1.0     5.3     1.44
>2.5.70-mm31         3   105     73.3    0.7     3.8     1.36
>xtar_load:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          3   123     62.6    2.3     5.7     1.56
>2.5.70-mm31         3   122     61.5    2.0     4.9     1.58
>io_load:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          4   116     66.4    40.6    18.8    1.47
>2.5.70-mm31         4   114     65.8    41.0    19.3    1.48
>io_other:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          2   116     66.4    50.0    22.2    1.47
>2.5.70-mm31         2   112     67.9    46.1    21.4    1.45
>read_load:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          2   104     75.0    8.2     5.8     1.32
>2.5.70-mm31         2   100     76.0    7.5     7.0     1.30
>list_load:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          2   95      80.0    0.0     7.4     1.20
>2.5.70-mm31         2   92      82.6    0.0     5.4     1.19
>mem_load:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          2   98      80.6    53.0    2.0     1.24
>2.5.70-mm31         2   95      81.1    53.0    2.1     1.23
>dbench_load:
>Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3          4   313     24.3    5.0     56.9    3.96
>2.5.70-mm31         4   297     24.9    4.5     52.5    3.86
>
>At first glance everything looks faster at 100Hz. However it is well known 
>that it will take slightly longer even with no load at 1000Hz. Taking that 
>into consideration and looking more at the final ratios than the absolute 
>numbers it is apparent that the difference is statistically insignificant, 
>except on ctar_load.
>
>Previously I had benchmark results on 1000Hz which showed preempt improved the 
>results in a few of the loads. For my next experiment I will compare 100Hz 
>with preempt to 100Hz without.
>
>Con
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQE+3BRIF6dfvkL3i1gRAnEbAKCpaj/kajzKV3qVrWGRIhOh+Q8O8gCfZp6c
>M3Iq1D/41t+4SB2jtNYQc48=
>=NMfC
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>  
>