Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:28:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:28:27 -0500 Received: from dial-ctb0572.webone.com.au ([210.9.245.72]:23556 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:28:23 -0500 Message-ID: <3E3B16CF.9050806@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 11:37:35 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020913 Debian/1.1-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas CC: linux kernel mailing list , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm7 with contest References: <200302010930.54538.conman@kolivas.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks using the osdl >(http://www.osdl.org) hardware comparing mm7 > >no_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 79 94.9 0 0.0 1.00 >2.5.59-mm6 1 78 96.2 0 0.0 1.00 >2.5.59-mm7 5 78 96.2 0 0.0 1.00 >cacherun: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 76 98.7 0 0.0 0.96 >2.5.59-mm6 1 76 97.4 0 0.0 0.97 >2.5.59-mm7 5 75 98.7 0 0.0 0.96 >process_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 92 81.5 28 16.3 1.16 >2.5.59-mm6 1 92 81.5 25 15.2 1.18 >2.5.59-mm7 4 90 82.2 25 18.3 1.15 >ctar_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 98 80.6 2 5.1 1.24 >2.5.59-mm6 3 112 70.5 2 4.5 1.44 >2.5.59-mm7 5 96 80.2 1 3.4 1.23 >xtar_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 101 75.2 1 4.0 1.28 >2.5.59-mm6 3 115 66.1 1 4.3 1.47 >2.5.59-mm7 5 96 79.2 0 3.3 1.23 >io_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 153 50.3 8 13.7 1.94 >2.5.59-mm6 2 90 83.3 2 6.7 1.15 >2.5.59-mm7 5 110 68.2 2 6.4 1.41 >read_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 102 76.5 5 4.9 1.29 >2.5.59-mm6 3 733 10.8 56 6.3 9.40 >2.5.59-mm7 4 90 84.4 1 1.3 1.15 >list_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 95 80.0 0 6.3 1.20 >2.5.59-mm6 3 97 79.4 0 6.2 1.24 >2.5.59-mm7 4 94 80.9 0 6.4 1.21 >mem_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 97 80.4 56 2.1 1.23 >2.5.59-mm6 3 94 83.0 50 2.1 1.21 >2.5.59-mm7 4 92 82.6 45 1.4 1.18 >dbench_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 126 60.3 3 22.2 1.59 >2.5.59-mm6 3 122 61.5 3 25.4 1.56 >2.5.59-mm7 4 121 62.0 2 24.8 1.55 >io_other: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.59 3 89 84.3 2 5.5 1.13 >2.5.59-mm6 2 90 83.3 2 6.7 1.15 >2.5.59-mm7 3 90 83.3 2 5.6 1.15 > >Seems the fix for "reads starves everything" works. Affected the tar loads >too? > Yes, at the cost of throughput, however for now it is probably the best way to go. Hopefully anticipatory scheduling will provide as good or better kernel compile times and better throughput. Con, tell me, are "Loads" normalised to the time they run for? Is it possible to get a finer grain result for the load tests? Thanks Nick - 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/