Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264925AbTFCEa7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:30:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264926AbTFCEa7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:30:59 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-210-9-245-29.webone.com.au ([210.9.245.29]:2820 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264925AbTFCEa5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:30:57 -0400 Message-ID: <3EDC279C.9070300@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:44:12 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030327 Debian/1.3-4 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas CC: linux kernel mailing list , Zwane Mwaikambo Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 100Hz v 1000Hz with contest References: <200306031322.01389.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200306031322.01389.kernel@kolivas.org> 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 Content-Length: 3813 Lines: 90 Well thats nice, AS holds up OK... Con Kolivas wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >I've attempted to answer the question does 1000Hz hurt responsiveness in 2.5 >as much as I've found in 2.4; since subjectively the difference wasn't there >in 2.5. Using the same config with preempt enabled here are results from >2.5.70-mm3 set at default 1000Hz and at 100Hz (mm31): > >no_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 1 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 >2.5.70-mm31 1 77 94.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 >cacherun: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 1 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.96 >2.5.70-mm31 1 74 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.96 >process_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 2 108 68.5 64.5 28.7 1.37 >2.5.70-mm31 2 107 69.2 67.0 29.0 1.39 >ctar_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 3 114 70.2 1.0 5.3 1.44 >2.5.70-mm31 3 105 73.3 0.7 3.8 1.36 >xtar_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 3 123 62.6 2.3 5.7 1.56 >2.5.70-mm31 3 122 61.5 2.0 4.9 1.58 >io_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 4 116 66.4 40.6 18.8 1.47 >2.5.70-mm31 4 114 65.8 41.0 19.3 1.48 >io_other: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 2 116 66.4 50.0 22.2 1.47 >2.5.70-mm31 2 112 67.9 46.1 21.4 1.45 >read_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 2 104 75.0 8.2 5.8 1.32 >2.5.70-mm31 2 100 76.0 7.5 7.0 1.30 >list_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 2 95 80.0 0.0 7.4 1.20 >2.5.70-mm31 2 92 82.6 0.0 5.4 1.19 >mem_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 2 98 80.6 53.0 2.0 1.24 >2.5.70-mm31 2 95 81.1 53.0 2.1 1.23 >dbench_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.70-mm3 4 313 24.3 5.0 56.9 3.96 >2.5.70-mm31 4 297 24.9 4.5 52.5 3.86 > >At first glance everything looks faster at 100Hz. However it is well known >that it will take slightly longer even with no load at 1000Hz. Taking that >into consideration and looking more at the final ratios than the absolute >numbers it is apparent that the difference is statistically insignificant, >except on ctar_load. > >Previously I had benchmark results on 1000Hz which showed preempt improved the >results in a few of the loads. For my next experiment I will compare 100Hz >with preempt to 100Hz without. > >Con >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) > >iD8DBQE+3BRIF6dfvkL3i1gRAnEbAKCpaj/kajzKV3qVrWGRIhOh+Q8O8gCfZp6c >M3Iq1D/41t+4SB2jtNYQc48= >=NMfC >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >- >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/ > > > - 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/