Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:40:49 -0400 | From | Puneet Vyas <> | Subject | Re: kernel 2.6 speed |
| |
Ciprian wrote:
>Hi guys! > >I got a question for you. Apparently kernel 2.6 is >much slower then 2.4 and about 30 times slower then >the windows one. > >I'm not an OS guru, but I ran a little and very simple >test. The program bellow, as you can see, measures the >number of cycles performed in 30 seconds. > >//----------------- START CODE -------------------- > >#include <stdio.h> >#include <time.h> > > >int main() >{ >time_t initialTime; >time_t testTime; >long counter = 0; >double test = 1; > > >time(&initialTime); >testTime = initialTime; > >printf("Here we go...\n"); > >while((testTime-initialTime) < 30) >{ >time(&testTime); >test /= 10; >test *= 10; >test += 10; >test -= 10; > >counter ++; > >} > >printf("No. of cycles: %ld\n", counter); > >return 0; >} > >//---------------- END CODE ------------------- > > >In windows were performed about 300 millions cycles, >while in Linux about 10 millions. This test was run on >Fedora 4 and Suse 9.2 as Linux machines, and Windows >XP Pro with VS .Net 2003 on the MS side. My CPU is a >P4 @3GHz HT 800MHz bus. > >I published my little test on several forums and I >wasn't the only one who got these results. All the >other users using 2.6 kernel obtained similar results >regardless of the CPU they had (Intel or AMD). > >Also I downloaded the latest kernel (2.6.12), >configured it specifically for my machine, disabled >all the modules I don't need and compiled it. The >result was a 1.7 MB kernel on which KDE moves faster, >but the processing speed it's the same - same huge >speed ratios. > >Also, it shouldn't have any importance, but my HDD is >SATA so the specific modules were required. I don't >think its SCSI modules have any impact on the >processing speed, but you know more on the kernel >architecture then I do. > >Now, can anyone explain this and suggest what other >optimizations I should use? The 2.4 version was a lot >faster. I thought the newer versions were supposed to >work faster (or at least just as fast) AND to offer >extra features. > >Any help would appreciate. > >Thanks, >Ciprian > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >- >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/ > > >
Want to increase the latest kernel "speed" by 5 times ? Use the follwoing code instead. :)
// -- Start Code #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h>
int main() { clock_t initialTime; clock_t testTime; long counter = 0; double test = 1;
initialTime = clock() / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; testTime = initialTime;
printf("Here we go...\n");
while((testTime-initialTime) < 30) { testTime = clock()/CLOCKS_PER_SEC; test /= 10; test *= 10; test += 10; test -= 10;
counter ++;
}
printf("No. of cycles: %ld\n", counter);
return 0; } // ---- End code
so essentially you are timing just the time() function.
HTH, Puneet - 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/
| |