lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm7 with contest
Con Kolivas wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks using the osdl
>(http://www.osdl.org) hardware comparing mm7
>
>no_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 79 94.9 0 0.0 1.00
>2.5.59-mm6 1 78 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
>2.5.59-mm7 5 78 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
>cacherun:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 76 98.7 0 0.0 0.96
>2.5.59-mm6 1 76 97.4 0 0.0 0.97
>2.5.59-mm7 5 75 98.7 0 0.0 0.96
>process_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 92 81.5 28 16.3 1.16
>2.5.59-mm6 1 92 81.5 25 15.2 1.18
>2.5.59-mm7 4 90 82.2 25 18.3 1.15
>ctar_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 98 80.6 2 5.1 1.24
>2.5.59-mm6 3 112 70.5 2 4.5 1.44
>2.5.59-mm7 5 96 80.2 1 3.4 1.23
>xtar_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 101 75.2 1 4.0 1.28
>2.5.59-mm6 3 115 66.1 1 4.3 1.47
>2.5.59-mm7 5 96 79.2 0 3.3 1.23
>io_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 153 50.3 8 13.7 1.94
>2.5.59-mm6 2 90 83.3 2 6.7 1.15
>2.5.59-mm7 5 110 68.2 2 6.4 1.41
>read_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 102 76.5 5 4.9 1.29
>2.5.59-mm6 3 733 10.8 56 6.3 9.40
>2.5.59-mm7 4 90 84.4 1 1.3 1.15
>list_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 95 80.0 0 6.3 1.20
>2.5.59-mm6 3 97 79.4 0 6.2 1.24
>2.5.59-mm7 4 94 80.9 0 6.4 1.21
>mem_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 97 80.4 56 2.1 1.23
>2.5.59-mm6 3 94 83.0 50 2.1 1.21
>2.5.59-mm7 4 92 82.6 45 1.4 1.18
>dbench_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 126 60.3 3 22.2 1.59
>2.5.59-mm6 3 122 61.5 3 25.4 1.56
>2.5.59-mm7 4 121 62.0 2 24.8 1.55
>io_other:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.59 3 89 84.3 2 5.5 1.13
>2.5.59-mm6 2 90 83.3 2 6.7 1.15
>2.5.59-mm7 3 90 83.3 2 5.6 1.15
>
>Seems the fix for "reads starves everything" works. Affected the tar loads
>too?
>
Yes, at the cost of throughput, however for now it is probably
the best way to go. Hopefully anticipatory scheduling will provide
as good or better kernel compile times and better throughput.

Con, tell me, are "Loads" normalised to the time they run for?
Is it possible to get a finer grain result for the load tests?

Thanks
Nick

-
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 13:32    [W:0.054 / U:4.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site