[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
> >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
> Kernel a would have a rate of .25 l/s, b: .4 l/s, c: .33~ l/s so I b would
> be better.

Err yeah thats what I mean sorry. What I'm getting at is notice they all do it
at 1/second regardless. It's only the scheduling balance that has changed
rather than the rate of work.

> >if there was
> >load time kernel d: 80, loads 40
> >
> >that would be more significant no?
> It would, yes... but it would measure .5 loads per second done.
> The noload time is basically constant anyway so I don't think it would add
> much value if it were incorporated into the results, but would make the
> metric harder to follow than simple "loads per second".

At the moment total loads tells the full story either way so for now I'm
sticking to that.

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:0.033 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site