Messages in this thread |  | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm7 with contest | Date | Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:21:16 +1100 |
| |
> >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.
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/
|  |