Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.{18,19{-ck9},20rc1{-aa1}} with contest | Date | Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:26:17 +1100 |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>On Sun, Nov 10 2002, Con Kolivas wrote: >> io_load: >> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >> 2420rc1r0 [3] 489.3 15 36 10 6.85 >> 2420rc1r8 [3] 485.5 15 35 10 6.80 >> 2420rc1r16 [3] 570.4 12 43 10 7.99 >> 2420rc1r32 [3] 570.1 12 42 10 7.98 >> 2420rc1r64 [3] 575.0 12 43 10 8.05 >> 2420rc1r128 [3] 611.4 11 46 10 8.56 >> 2420rc1r256 [3] 646.2 11 49 10 9.05 >> 2420rc1r512 [3] 603.7 12 45 10 8.46 >> 2420rc1r1024 [3] 693.9 10 53 10 9.72 >> 2.4.20-rc1 [2] 1142.2 6 90 10 16.00 >> >> Test hardware is 1133Mhz P3 laptop with 5400rpm ATA100 drive. I don't >> doubt the response curve would be different for other hardware. > >That looks pretty good, the behaviour in 2.4.20-rc1 is no sanely tunable >unlike before. Could you retest the whole contest suite with 512 as the >default value? It looks like a good default for 2.4.20.
Ok here they are:
noload: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.18 [5] 71.7 93 0 0 1.00 2.4.19 [5] 69.0 97 0 0 0.97 2.4.20-rc1 [3] 72.2 93 0 0 1.01 2420rc1r512 [3] 71.6 93 0 0 1.00
cacherun: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.18 [2] 66.6 99 0 0 0.93 2.4.19 [2] 68.0 99 0 0 0.95 2.4.20-rc1 [3] 67.2 99 0 0 0.94 2420rc1r512 [3] 67.1 99 0 0 0.94
process_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.18 [3] 109.5 57 119 44 1.53 2.4.19 [3] 106.5 59 112 43 1.49 2.4.20-rc1 [3] 110.7 58 119 43 1.55 2420rc1r512 [3] 112.1 57 122 43 1.57
ctar_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.18 [3] 117.4 63 1 7 1.64 2.4.19 [2] 106.5 70 1 8 1.49 2.4.20-rc1 [3] 102.1 72 1 7 1.43 2420rc1r512 [3] 101.7 73 1 8 1.42
xtar_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.18 [3] 150.8 49 2 8 2.11 2.4.19 [1] 132.4 55 2 9 1.85 2.4.20-rc1 [3] 180.7 40 3 8 2.53 2420rc1r512 [3] 170.0 44 3 7 2.38
io_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.18 [3] 474.1 15 36 10 6.64 2.4.19 [3] 492.6 14 38 10 6.90 2.4.20-rc1 [2] 1142.2 6 90 10 16.00 2420rc1r512 [6] 602.7 12 45 10 8.44
read_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.18 [3] 102.3 70 6 3 1.43 2.4.19 [2] 134.1 54 14 5 1.88 2.4.20-rc1 [3] 173.2 43 20 5 2.43 2420rc1r512 [3] 112.5 67 11 5 1.58
list_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.18 [3] 90.2 76 1 17 1.26 2.4.19 [1] 89.8 77 1 20 1.26 2.4.20-rc1 [3] 88.8 77 0 12 1.24 2420rc1r512 [3] 88.0 78 0 12 1.23
mem_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.18 [3] 103.3 70 32 3 1.45 2.4.19 [3] 100.0 72 33 3 1.40 2.4.20-rc1 [3] 105.9 69 32 2 1.48 2420rc1r512 [3] 105.0 70 33 3 1.47
Looks good. Note that read_load is a lot "better" too.
Con -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9zzFtF6dfvkL3i1gRAvQ/AJ0UK7za0Uvy6SnyPxFoYEjcX2iGDACcCWfx WRq8eTboTj6bRCzERw/gMfo= =kSMm -----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/
| |