Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:41:26 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] contest results for 2.5.36 |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > > Here are the latest results with 2.5.36 compared with 2.5.34 > > No Load: > Kernel Time CPU > 2.4.19 68.14 99% > 2.4.20-pre7 68.11 99% > 2.5.34 69.88 99% > 2.4.19-ck7 68.40 98% > 2.4.19-ck7-rmap 68.73 99% > 2.4.19-cc 68.37 99% > 2.5.36 69.58 99%
page_add/remove_rmap. Be interesting to test an Alan kernel too.
> Process Load: > Kernel Time CPU > 2.4.19 81.10 80% > 2.4.20-pre7 81.92 80% > 2.5.34 71.39 94% > 2.5.36 71.80 94%
Ingo ;)
> Mem Load: > Kernel Time CPU > 2.4.19 92.49 77% > 2.4.20-pre7 92.25 77% > 2.5.34 138.05 54% > 2.5.36 132.45 56%
The swapping fix in -mm1 may help here.
> IO Halfmem Load: > Kernel Time CPU > 2.4.19 99.41 70% > 2.4.20-pre7 99.42 71% > 2.5.34 74.31 93% > 2.5.36 94.82 76%
Don't know. Was this with IO load against the same disk as the one on which the kernel was being compiled, or a different one? This is a very important factor - one way we're testing the VM and the other way we're testing the IO scheduler.
> IO Fullmem Load: > Kernel Time CPU > 2.4.19 173.00 41% > 2.4.20-pre7 146.38 48% > 2.5.34 74.00 94% > 2.5.36 87.57 81%
If the IO load was against the same disk 2.5 _should_ have sucked, due to the writes-starves-reads problem which we're working on. So I assume it was against a different disk. In which case 2.5 should not have shown these improvements, because all the fixes for this are still in -mm. hm. Helpful, aren't I? - 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/
| |