Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:53:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:53:40 -0400 Received: from c16688.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.244.54]:22732 "EHLO kolivas.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:53:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1034110752.3da34720d9919@kolivas.net> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 06:59:12 +1000 From: Con Kolivas To: linux kernel mailing list Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.41 contest results MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4450 Lines: 97 The original posting of this disappeared into the ether so here is another copy for lkml. Here follow the contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmark results up to and including 2.5.41 noload: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.19 [3] 67.7 98 0 0 1.01 2.5.38 [3] 72.0 93 0 0 1.07 2.5.39 [2] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07 2.5.40 [1] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08 2.5.40-mm2 [1] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07 2.5.41 [1] 73.8 93 0 0 1.10 process_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.19 [3] 106.5 59 112 43 1.59 2.5.38 [3] 89.5 74 34 28 1.33 2.5.39 [2] 91.2 73 36 28 1.36 2.5.40 [2] 82.8 80 25 23 1.23 2.5.40-mm2 [1] 98.0 69 45 33 1.46 2.5.41 [1] 91.1 73 38 30 1.36 Proportional change here. Time longer than .40 but load also achieving more in that time; not a real performance penalty. io_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.19 [3] 492.6 14 38 10 7.33 2.5.38 [1] 4000.0 1 500 1 59.55 2.5.39 [2] 423.9 18 30 11 6.31 2.5.40 [1] 315.7 25 22 10 4.70 2.5.40-mm2 [2] 208.0 38 12 10 3.10 2.5.41 [2] 607.5 13 47 12 9.04 Something happened here. Under heavy writing load it started choking again. Noticeably detrimental. mem_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.19 [3] 100.0 72 33 3 1.49 2.5.38 [3] 107.3 70 34 3 1.60 2.5.39 [2] 103.1 72 31 3 1.53 2.5.40 [2] 102.5 72 31 3 1.53 2.5.40-mm2 [2] 165.1 44 38 2 2.46 2.5.41 [1] 101.6 73 30 3 1.51 read_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.19 [2] 134.1 54 14 5 2.00 2.5.38 [2] 100.5 76 9 5 1.50 2.5.39 [2] 101.3 74 14 6 1.51 2.5.40 [1] 101.5 73 13 5 1.51 2.5.40-mm2 [1] 102.7 75 7 4 1.53 2.5.41 [1] 101.1 75 7 4 1.51 Basically very similar results except for write loads being allowed to do more to the detriment of other tasks. Below are also the experimental loads not included in the stable release of contest: tarx_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.19 [1] 132.4 55 2 9 1.97 2.5.38 [1] 120.5 63 2 8 1.79 2.5.39 [1] 108.3 69 1 6 1.61 2.5.40 [1] 110.7 68 1 6 1.65 2.5.40-mm2 [1] 188.1 39 3 7 2.80 2.5.41 [2] 138.8 53 2 8 2.07 Tar extract load seems to be doing proportionately more work than .40 tarc_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.19 [2] 106.5 70 1 8 1.59 2.5.38 [1] 97.2 79 1 6 1.45 2.5.39 [1] 91.8 83 1 6 1.37 2.5.40 [1] 96.9 80 1 6 1.44 2.5.40-mm2 [1] 91.9 82 1 6 1.37 2.5.41 [1] 93.3 81 1 6 1.39 lslr_load: Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.4.19 [1] 89.8 77 1 20 1.34 2.5.38 [1] 99.1 71 1 20 1.48 2.5.39 [1] 101.3 70 2 24 1.51 2.5.40 [1] 97.0 72 1 21 1.44 2.5.40-mm2 [1] 94.3 75 1 21 1.40 2.5.41 [1] 93.6 75 1 18 1.39 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/