Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262715AbVDAL0w (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2005 06:26:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262716AbVDAL0w (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2005 06:26:52 -0500 Received: from relay1.tiscali.de ([62.26.116.129]:2188 "EHLO webmail.tiscali.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262715AbVDAL0o (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2005 06:26:44 -0500 Message-ID: <424D2FE6.3050905@tiscali.de> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 13:26:30 +0200 From: Matthias-Christian Ott User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050108) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Vreeken CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: YABM (Yet another benchmark) References: <424CFF86.3020304@amsat.org> In-Reply-To: <424CFF86.3020304@amsat.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3653 Lines: 136 Jeroen Vreeken schrieb: > Hi, > > This benchmark was made in response to a recent post here on lkm were > Linus indicated he would welcom pretty much any benchmark. > Since there are already several database benchmarks, 3d benchmarks I > opted for a more down to earth approach. > As such I am pleased to announce the 'linux kernel hacker benchmark', > a benchmark designed to simulate the activities of the average linux > kernel hacker. > With this benchmark it should be possible to measure the performance > off the kernel for its most important user group, the kernel hacker. > > This workload turns out to be relativly simple to simulate as can be > seen in the attached benchmark program 'lkh-bm.c'. > It is compiled with 'gcc -Wall lkh-bm.c -o lkh-bm'. > > This test has been run on all 2.6 releases and several older kernels > dating some years back. Unfortunatly 1.1 and lower kernels aren't able > to complete the test. > The compiler used was gcc 3.2.3, the cpu a Celeron @ 2.4GHz. > I plan to run this test daily on all releases, bk, mm and ac snapshots > and maybe more trees on kernel.org asuming nobody objects to me doing > a recursive web-suck with wget. > > At the end of this post you will find the already done benchmarks. > As Linus seems to dig pretty pictures a graph has been attached > (lkh-bm.gif) with the same results. > Surprisingly the number seems to be constant during the last years. > This could either indicate that the kernel hasn't regressed for years > in this respect (which would mean somebody is doing a fine job indeed) > or it could mean that the average kernel hacker simply doesn't do much > usufull anyway.... > > Regards, > Jeroen > > > Benchmark results: > 1.1.0 0 > 1.1.20 0 > 1.1.40 0 > 1.1.60 0 > 1.2.0 603 > 2.0.0 604 > 2.0.10 605 > 2.0.20 600 > 2.0.30 601 > 2.2.0 602 > 2.2.10 603 > 2.2.20 604 > 2.4.0 605 > 2.4.10 600 > 2.4.20 601 > 2.6.0 602 > 2.6.1 603 > 2.6.2 604 > 2.6.3 605 > 2.6.4 600 > 2.6.5 601 > 2.6.6 602 > 2.6.7 603 > 2.6.8 604 > 2.6.9 605 > 2.6.10 600 > 2.6.11 601 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >#include >#include > >#define MEASUREMENT_TIME 60 >#define LINUS_CONSTANT 6 > >/* > * my_integer_pi() > * > * This function calculates the value of PI, and returns > * 3. It does so by adding "1" in a loop three times. > */ >int my_integer_pi(void) >{ > int i, pi; > > /* > * This is the main loop. > */ > pi = 0; > for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) > pi++; > > /* Ok, return it */ > return pi; >} > >int main(int argc, char **argv) >{ > time_t timer, start, prev; > int completed = 0; > int calc; > > start = time(NULL); > timer = start; > prev = start; > while ( timer - start <= MEASUREMENT_TIME ) { > /* do some typical kernel hacker stuff... */ > calc = my_integer_pi(); > timer = time(NULL); > if ((timer - prev) == LINUS_CONSTANT ) { > completed++; > prev = timer; > } > } > printf("endless LKH loops per hour: %ld\n", > completed * 3600 / MEASUREMENT_TIME + (time(NULL) % LINUS_CONSTANT)); > > return 0; >} > > This is _not_ serious a benchmark! It's just a counter! A _real_ benchmark would test threads, memory management, the schedule, . . . I guess on a NetBSD or Windows machine with the same Hardware you would get the same result. Matthias-Christian Ott - 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/