lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39 with contest 0.41
    Quoting Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>:

    > Con Kolivas wrote:
    > >
    > > Here follow the latest benchmarks with contest
    > (http://contest.kolivas.net)
    > >
    > > noload:
    > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio
    > > 2.4.19 67.71 98% 1.00*
    > > 2.5.38 72.38 94% 1.07
    > > 2.5.38-mm3 73.00 93% 1.08
    > > 2.5.39 73.17 93% 1.08
    > >
    > > process_load:
    > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio
    > > 2.4.19 110.75 57% 1.64*
    > > 2.5.38 85.71 79% 1.27
    > > 2.5.38-mm3 96.32 72% 1.42*
    > > 2.5.39 88.18 77% 1.30
    >
    > well that's funny.
    >
    > > io_load:
    > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio
    > > 2.4.19 216.05 33% 3.19
    > > 2.5.38 887.76 8% 13.11*
    > > 2.5.38-mm3 105.17 70% 1.55*
    > > 2.5.39 216.81 37% 3.20
    >
    > -mm3 has fifo_batch=16. 2.5.39 has fifo_batch=32.
    >
    > > mem_load:
    > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio
    > > 2.4.19 105.40 70% 1.56
    > > 2.5.38 107.89 73% 1.59
    > > 2.5.38-mm3 117.09 63% 1.73*
    > > 2.5.39 103.72 72% 1.53
    >
    > 2.5's swapout is still fairly synchronously sucky. So low-latency
    > writeout could be advantageous there. This difference is probably
    > also the fifo_batch thing. Or maybe statistical?
    >
    >
    > I did some testing with your latest. 4xPIII, mem=512m, SCSI,
    > tag depth = 0, 2.5.39-mm1 candidate:
    >
    > fifo_batch=32:
    >
    > noload 2:34.53 291%
    > cpuload 2:36.20 286%
    > memload 2:19.44 333%
    > ioloadhalf 2:34.81 303%
    > ioloadfull 3:15.47 238%
    >
    > (err. memload sped it up!)
    >
    > fifo_batch=16:
    >
    > noload 2:00.03 380%
    > cpuload 2:27.62 304%
    > memload 2:22.59 326%
    > ioloadhalf 2:33.75 306%
    > ioloadfull 2:59.18 259%
    >
    > - Something went horridly wrong in the first `noload' test.
    > - fifo_batch=16 is better than 32.
    > - you see a 4x hit from io_load. I see a 1.5x hit.
    >
    > This is all pretty wild. I'll go profile process_load a bit.
    >
    >
    >
    > BTW, please change all the
    >
    > #define dprintf(...) printf(__VA_ARGS__)
    >
    > to
    >
    > #define dprintf(x...) printf(x)
    >
    > so people who use crufty old compilers can build it.
    >

    Ok will fix. But please Andrew use version 0.41 of contest (posted only 2 hours
    ago). The results from that are far more meaningful and reproducible.

    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 13:29    [W:0.024 / U:31.276 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site