lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Subject[BENCHMARK] 2.5.63-mm2 + i/o schedulers with contest
Date
Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) benchmarks using the osdl 
hardware (http://www.osdl.org) for 2.5.63-mm2 and various i/o schedulers:

2.5.63-mm2: anticipatory scheduler (AS)
2.5.63-mm2cfq: complete fair queueing scheduler (CFQ)
2.5.63-mm2dl: deadline scheduler (DL)

no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 4 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 79 93.7 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.63-mm2 3 80 92.5 0.0 0.0 1.00
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 79 93.7 0.0 0.0 1.00

cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 4 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.96
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 75 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.95
2.5.63-mm2 3 75 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.94
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 75 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.95

process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 4 92 81.5 28.2 15.2 1.16
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 92 80.4 27.7 16.3 1.16
2.5.63-mm2 3 92 80.4 29.3 16.3 1.15
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 92 80.4 28.3 16.3 1.16

ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 3 99 79.8 1.0 4.0 1.25
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 102 76.5 0.0 0.0 1.29
2.5.63-mm2 3 112 70.5 1.0 6.2 1.40
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 103 75.7 0.0 0.0 1.30

xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 3 102 74.5 1.0 3.9 1.29
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 106 71.7 1.0 3.8 1.34
2.5.63-mm2 3 108 70.4 1.0 4.6 1.35
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 105 72.4 1.0 3.8 1.33

io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 5 217 35.0 56.7 15.1 2.75
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 218 34.9 50.3 12.8 2.76
2.5.63-mm2 3 99 75.8 15.1 7.1 1.24
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 168 44.6 39.6 13.1 2.13

io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 4 95 78.9 15.3 8.3 1.20
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 93 80.6 14.7 7.5 1.18
2.5.63-mm2 3 92 80.4 13.2 6.5 1.15
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 96 78.1 15.3 7.3 1.22

read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 3 106 74.5 5.7 4.7 1.34
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 112 68.8 6.8 5.4 1.42
2.5.63-mm2 3 121 64.5 8.4 5.8 1.51
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 107 72.9 6.2 4.7 1.35

list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 3 96 79.2 0.0 6.2 1.22
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 97 79.4 0.0 6.2 1.23
2.5.63-mm2 3 99 76.8 0.0 6.1 1.24
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 98 78.6 0.0 6.1 1.24

mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 3 104 75.0 57.7 1.9 1.32
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 101 76.2 52.3 2.0 1.28
2.5.63-mm2 3 132 59.1 90.3 2.3 1.65
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 100 79.0 52.0 2.0 1.27

dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.63 4 194 39.2 2.0 38.7 2.46
2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 269 28.3 3.7 37.2 3.41
2.5.63-mm2 3 236 32.2 2.7 43.2 2.95
2.5.63-mm2dl 3 207 36.7 2.0 36.2 2.62

It seems the AS scheduler reliably takes slightly longer to compile the kernel
in no load conditions, but only about 1% cpu.

CFQ and DL faster to compile the kernel than AS while extracting or creating
tars.

AS significantly faster under writing large file to the same disk (io_load) or
other disk (io_other) conditions. The CFQ and DL schedulers showed much more
variability on io_load during testing but did not drop below 140 seconds.

CFQ and DL scheduler were faster compiling the kernel under read_load,
list_load and dbench_load.

Mem_load result of AS being slower was just plain weird with the result rising
from 100 to 150 during testing.

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:0.038 / U:2.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site