lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Subject[BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest
Date
Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl 
(http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o
scheduler or the cfq scheduler.

no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.61 1 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.61-mm1 3 81 91.4 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 75 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.95
2.5.61 1 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.96
2.5.61-mm1 3 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.94
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.96
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 91 78.0 32.3 18.7 1.15
2.5.61 1 93 80.6 29.0 16.1 1.18
2.5.61-mm1 3 179 41.9 178.0 57.0 2.21
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 188 39.9 196.7 59.0 2.38
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 98 79.6 1.0 4.1 1.24
2.5.61 2 100 79.0 1.0 4.0 1.27
2.5.61-mm1 2 137 58.4 2.0 5.8 1.69
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 104 76.0 1.0 3.8 1.32
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 108 70.4 1.0 3.7 1.37
2.5.61 2 102 75.5 1.0 4.9 1.29
2.5.61-mm1 2 158 48.7 2.0 4.4 1.95
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 104 74.0 1.0 3.8 1.32
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42
2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81
2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 89 84.3 10.5 5.6 1.13
2.5.61 2 91 82.4 11.1 5.5 1.15
2.5.61-mm1 2 187 41.7 84.7 27.3 2.31
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 199 39.2 77.2 23.5 2.52
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 93 81.7 2.8 2.2 1.18
2.5.61 2 102 77.5 6.3 4.9 1.29
2.5.61-mm1 2 120 65.8 8.9 5.8 1.48
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 109 72.5 7.1 5.5 1.38
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 96 79.2 0.0 6.2 1.22
2.5.61 2 95 81.1 0.0 6.3 1.20
2.5.61-mm1 2 97 79.4 0.0 6.2 1.20
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 97 79.4 0.0 6.2 1.23
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.60-mm1 3 95 82.1 51.7 2.1 1.20
2.5.61 1 96 81.2 54.0 2.1 1.22
2.5.61-mm1 2 128 61.7 72.0 2.3 1.58
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 117 66.7 61.0 1.7 1.48
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.61 2 237 32.5 3.0 47.3 3.00
2.5.61-mm1 2 716 10.8 11.0 50.4 8.84
2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 426 18.1 5.7 50.7 5.39

So we're getting into a situation where 2.6 will have either server or desktop
tuning? I guess if one can't fit all (ideal) then this is a good compromise.
What I don't understand is why the anticipatory scheduler takes longer to
compile a kernel without any load running? This happened with previous tests
of the as scheduler too.

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 13:33    [W:0.059 / U:0.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site