![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Quoting Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > Quoting Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>: > > > > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > > > > Correct. contest was run with gcc2.95.3 only. The kernels were > compiled > > > with > > > > 2.95.3 and 3.2 respectively. > > > > > > I think you made a mistake. Please rerun. Just one data point will do. > > > > > > > Ok here are two points to confirm the results and their reproducibility: > > > > No Load: > > 2.5.38 68.25 99% > > 2.5.38-gcc32 103.03 99% > > 2.5.38-gcc32a 103.47 99% > > > > Process Load: > > 2.5.38 71.60 95% > > 2.5.38-gcc32 112.98 91% > > 2.5.38-gcc32a 113.60 91% > > > > beats the hell out of me. Frankly, I *still* think > you made a mistake (at least on the io load thing) > because the CPU time went down by a mile - it was > waiting on disk all the time. If you think I've made a mistake then you're probably correct. I'm investigating this further. Please do NOT pass judgement on these benchmarks until I completely retest everything, ensuring gcc is fixed for everything except the kernel being tested. Disregard until I have a fresh set of confirmed results. Con. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||