2002-01-06 05:51:19

by vvikram

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [ingo patch] 2.4.17 benchmarks


hi ingo,

1) i downloaded lmbench and ran the series of tests [make result]
i ran two set of tests on the vanilla kernel and two series on the
patched kernel . they are attached to this mail [av_vanilla.0, av_vanila.1,
av.0 and av.1 are the patched kernel lmbench files]

2) further i seperately ran ./lat_proc fork; ./lat_proc exec; ./lat_proc shell
many times on the vanilla and patched kernels. their output is also
attached in one file [lat_proc.txt]. the patched kernel takes
MORE time than the vanilla one......

3) anyways the box i am running your patch on is _stable_ and has given no
problems for the past few hours. i am running a lot of netscape and
ssh sessions. as mentioned before, its a UP box with 256 mb ram [AMD 750 mhz]

this is my first time with kernel level tests so please point/overlook
glaring errors:)

hope this helps.
Vikram

ps: i get bounced mail back from your elte.hu account....


Attachments:
(No filename) (945.00 B)
av.0 (16.33 kB)
av.1 (16.32 kB)
av_vanilla.0 (16.37 kB)
av_vanilla.1 (16.38 kB)
lat_proc.txt (5.26 kB)
Download all attachments

2002-01-06 10:17:56

by Ryan Cumming

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [ingo patch] 2.4.17 benchmarks

On January 5, 2002 21:50, [email protected] wrote:
> 2) further i seperately ran ./lat_proc fork; ./lat_proc exec; ./lat_proc
> shell many times on the vanilla and patched kernels. their output is also
> attached in one file [lat_proc.txt]. the patched kernel takes
> MORE time than the vanilla one......

I'd blame this partially on the reverted fork() execution order bit of his
patch. The child process really should be executed first, and performance is
much improved in that case (COW and things). I don't think we should worry
about breaking obviously incorrect (and already fragile) programs for 2.5.x.

-Ryan

2002-01-06 12:35:31

by Vikram

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [ingo patch] 2.4.17 benchmarks


> I'd blame this partially on the reverted fork() execution order bit of his
> patch. The child process really should be executed first, and performance is
> much improved in that case (COW and things). I don't think we should worry
> about breaking obviously incorrect (and already fragile) programs for 2.5.x.

ok.

and one more thing which i thought i should mention , i used lmbench
2.0 vanilla... i just see that there seems to be 2 patches for 2.0 . i
didnt apply them , maybe i should? are they relevant to this context?

Vikram

> -Ryan
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>