![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
sena seneviratne wrote: > In fact my question in the post was about performance testing after > the changes being done. > > --2) Now about the tests > --As I have documented all this yet need to perform some standard > tests for the sake of completion. > --What tests should I carry out to prove that the system is still intact? > --Please tell me whether the below is correct? > > --(a) As suggested by the http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/ the > lmbench and re-aim-7 test packages can be used to test the > ----performance of the kernel before making changes and after. (Not > done as yet) > To measure impact of patches for a kernel tree, Contest (available from http://freshmeat.net/projects/contest/) is a good start. lmbench is also useful. > --(-b) Further tests have been carried out to check the response time > of short tasks before making changes and after making --changes. The > results indicated that there was no difference in the response time > after introducing the changes to the kernel (done) > > ---(c) Thereafter the tests have been carried out to check the runtime > of long tasks before and after making changes. The results of the > tests revealed that there is no change in reported runtime in both > occasions.(done) > Why is there a distinction between short and long running tasks when overall performance overhead of the kernel needs to be verified ? - 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: 2006-06-19 06:10 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||