Hi all,
here the contest results:
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 128.8 97 0 0 1.01
2.5.40 [3] 134.4 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.40-nopree [3] 133.7 96 0 0 1.04
2.5.41 [3] 136.5 96 0 0 1.07
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 134.8 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.42 [3] 134.8 96 0 0 1.05
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 135.5 96 0 0 1.06
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 194.1 60 134 40 1.52
2.5.40 [3] 184.5 70 53 31 1.44
2.5.40-nopree [3] 286.4 45 163 55 2.24
2.5.41 [3] 192.6 68 59 32 1.50
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 193.4 66 68 34 1.51
2.5.42 [3] 187.6 68 58 32 1.46
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 186.0 69 60 31 1.45
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 461.0 28 46 8 3.60
2.5.40 [3] 293.6 45 25 8 2.29
2.5.40-nopree [3] 269.4 50 20 7 2.10
2.5.41 [3] 342.7 41 34 9 2.68
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 251.1 54 21 8 1.96
2.5.42 [3] 304.5 45 28 9 2.38
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 254.6 53 20 8 1.99
It seems useful to me add a colum with CPU%+LCPU%.
It is intersting to notice that 2.5.41 spend 41+9=50% CPU time
for compiling and for the io_load while 2.5.42 spend 45+9=54%
time. Can I say that 2.5.42 is "better" than 2.5.41 ?
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.42 [3] 162.3 82 10 4 1.27
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 162.5 82 10 4 1.27
No difference here.
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.42 [3] 154.2 85 0 6 1.20
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 155.1 85 0 6 1.21
No difference here.
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 161.1 80 38 2 1.26
2.5.40 [3] 163.0 80 34 2 1.27
2.5.40-nopree [3] 161.7 80 34 2 1.26
2.5.41 [3] 161.0 83 33 2 1.26
2.5.41-mm2 [3] 229.9 57 35 1 1.80
2.5.42 [3] 157.9 83 33 2 1.23
2.5.42-mm2 [3] 162.2 81 33 2 1.27
No difference here.
Comments ?
Paolo
--
Get your free email from http://www.linuxmail.org
Powered by Outblaze
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>It seems useful to me add a colum with CPU%+LCPU%.
>It is intersting to notice that 2.5.41 spend 41+9=50% CPU time
>for compiling and for the io_load while 2.5.42 spend 45+9=54%
>time. Can I say that 2.5.42 is "better" than 2.5.41 ?
No I'm afraid not. The lcpu% cant estimate accurately the cpu% used by the
load while the kernel is actually being compiled as the load starts before
ther kernel compilation and ends after it. This means that lcpu% will always
overestimate the loads' cpu%. I haven't found a workaround for this... yet
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9qLUdF6dfvkL3i1gRAmS/AJ49q1Kd1RBZU8bflVd2n5RUi1Q3UQCffNZI
8V14Cm2/xbXk/QMCCoBnIf4=
=/fVc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----