Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:24:31 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 100Hz preempt v nopreempt contest results |
| |
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 23:39, Con Kolivas wrote: >> Note this time the ratio is less useful since they are both 100Hz. The >> difference this time shows a large preempt improvement in process_load much >> like 1000Hz did. Interestingly, even unloaded kernels no_load and cache_load >> runs are faster with preempt. Only in xtar_load (repeatedly extracting a tar >> with multiple small files) was no preempt faster.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:05:58AM -0700, Robert Love wrote: > Thanks for running these, Con. > I think this is an example of kernel preemption doing exactly what we > want it to (improve interactive performance)... probably primarily > because of the more accurate timeslice distribution. > Would be interested to figure out why xtar_load is slower.
It would be helpful to get more accurate time accounting a la Mike Galbraith's patches.
-- wli - 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/
| |