lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux-2.4.14-pre8..
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 05:44:18PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ok, this is hopefully the last 2.4.14 pre-kernel, and per popular demand I
> hope to avoid any major changes between "last pre" and final. So give it a
> whirl, and don't whine if the final doesn't act in a way you like it to.
>
> Special thanks to Andrea - we spent too much time tracking down a subtle
> sigsegv problem, but we got it in the end.
>
> Also, I was able to reproduce the total lack of interactivity that the
> google people complained about, and while I didn't run the google tests
> themselves, at least the load I had is fixed.
>
> But most of the changes are actually trying to catch up with some of the
> emails that I ignored while working on the VM issues. I hope the VM is
> good to go, along with a real 2.4.14.

The results for 2.4.14-pre8 of my kernel compile tests are following:

j25 j50 j75 j100

2.4.13-pre5aa1: 5:02.63 5:09.18 5:26.27 5:34.36
2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:58.80 5:12.30 5:26.23 5:32.14
2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:57.66 5:11.29 5:45.90 6:03.53
2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:58.39 5:13.10 5:29.32 5:44.49
2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:57.93 5:09.76 5:24.76 5:26.79

2.4.14-pre6: 4:58.88 5:16.68 5:45.93 7:16.56
2.4.14-pre6: 4:55.72 5:34.65 5:57.94 6:50.58
2.4.14-pre6: 4:59.46 5:16.88 6:25.83 6:51.43
2.4.14-pre6: 4:56.38 5:18.88 6:15.97 6:31.72
2.4.14-pre6: 4:55.79 5:17.47 6:00.23 6:44.85

2.4.14-pre7: 4:56.39 5:22.84 6:09.05 9:56.59
2.4.14-pre7: 4:56.55 5:25.15 7:01.37 7:03.74
2.4.14-pre7: 4:59.44 5:15.10 6:06.78 12:51.39*
2.4.14-pre7: 4:58.07 5:30.55 6:15.37 *
2.4.14-pre7: 4:58.17 5:26.80 6:41.44 *

2.4.14-pre8: 4:57.14 5:10.72 5:54.42 6:37.39
2.4.14-pre8: 4:59.57 5:11.63 6:34.97 11:23.77
2.4.14-pre8: 4:58.18 5:16.67 6:07.88 6:32.38
2.4.14-pre8: 4:56.23 5:16.57 6:15.01 7:02.45
2.4.14-pre8: 4:58.53 5:19.98 5:39.09 12:08.69

Is there anything else I can measure during the kernel compiles?
Are the numbers for >= -pre6 slower because of measures taken to
increase the "interactivity" / responsivness of the kernel?

The part that looks most suspicious to me is that the results
for make -j100 vary so much ...


Regards,

Jogi


These are the additional infos from time -v for make -j100:

User time (seconds): 261.63
System time (seconds): 25.89
Percent of CPU this job got: 72%
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 6:37.39
Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 937515
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1059195

User time (seconds): 264.69
System time (seconds): 28.47
Percent of CPU this job got: 42%
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 11:23.77
Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 999211
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1101511

User time (seconds): 262.22
System time (seconds): 25.11
Percent of CPU this job got: 73%
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 6:32.38
Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 935552
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1064976

User time (seconds): 262.22
System time (seconds): 26.77
Percent of CPU this job got: 68%
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 7:02.45
Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 960273
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1075637

User time (seconds): 263.20
System time (seconds): 35.87
Percent of CPU this job got: 41%
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 12:08.69
Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 953770
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 1105582


--

Well, yeah ... I suppose there's no point in getting greedy, is there?

<< Calvin & Hobbes >>
-
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 13:12    [W:0.132 / U:2.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site