[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm7 with contest
On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 11:55 am, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 11:37 am, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>Con Kolivas wrote:
> >>>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?
> >
> >No, the load is the absolute number of times the load successfully
> > completed. We battled with the code for a while to see if there were ways
> > to get more accurate load numbers but if you write a 256Mb file you can
> > only tell if it completes the write or not; not how much has been written
> > when you stop the write. Same goes with read etc. The load rate is a more
> > meaningful number but we haven't gotten around to implementing that in
> > the result presentation.
> I don't know how the contest code works, but if you split that into
> a number of smaller writes it should work?

Yes it would but the load effect is significantly diminished. By writing a
file the size==physical ram the load effect is substantial.

> >Load rate would be:
> >
> >loads / ( load_compile_time - no_load_compile_time )
> I think loads / time_load_ran_for should be ok (ie, give you loads per time
> interval). This would be more useful if your loads were getting more
> efficient
> or less because it is possible that an improvement would lower compile time
> _and_ loads, but overall the loads were getting done quicker.

I found the following is how loads occur almost always:
noload time: 60
load time kernal a: 80, loads 20
load time kernel b: 100, loads 40
load time kernel c: 90, loads 30

and loads/total time wouldnt show this effect as kernel c would appear to have
a better load rate

if there was
load time kernel d: 80, loads 40

that would be more significant no?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.044 / U:0.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site