From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261232AbUEWJjC (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 05:39:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261752AbUEWJjC (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 05:39:02 -0400 Received: from smtp014.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.173.58]:49324 "HELO smtp014.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261232AbUEWJi7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 05:38:59 -0400 Message-ID: <40B07130.6020408@yahoo.com.au> Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 19:38:56 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040401 Debian/1.6-4 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gergely Czuczy CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 VS 2.6 fork VS thread creation time test References: <40B066EC.1010107@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Gergely Czuczy wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2004, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>Gergely Czuczy wrote: >> >>>Box B is a lot better, but it doesn't metter according to the test, >>>because the aim was to get the ratio of the two times with different >>>sample rates. >>> >> >>Even so, you really should be using the same system if you want >>comparable results. The pentium 4 in particular can do worse at >>specific things in microbenchmarks. > > It doesn't matter. That's why you should look at the "ratio" at the end > and not on the pure numbers, they are just bonus "information" > I understand that... but the P4 might execute the fork test relatively slower than the thread test compared to the P3. Different CPU architectures, cache types and sizes, memory to CPU speeds, etc. might all have some influcene on the ratio.