Message-Id: <200510290004.j9T044g27679@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Jeff Garzik'" <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@suse.de>
Subject: RE: kernel performance update - 2.6.14
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:04:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcXcGvRqYnPtWd7KRQq1dlYbyp/IwAAAD6iw
In-Reply-To: <4362BA30.2020504@pobox.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1401
Lines: 31

Jeff Garzik wrote on Friday, October 28, 2005 4:54 PM
> Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > Kernel performance data for 2.6.14 (released yesterday) is updated at:
> > http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net
> > 
> > As expected, results are within run variation compares to 2.6.14-rc5.
> > No significant deviation found compare to 2.6.14-rc5
> 
> Do I read this correctly:  according to your benchmarks, fileio-noop and 
> fileio-cfq are down some 20% or more, across all machine configurations, 
> since 2.6.9? In the 4P configuration, dbench-{noop,as} both seem to have 
> regressed as well.

Yes, you did read that correctly.  For some benchmarks, these numbers
can't be directly interpreted as a regression since we may not have
the correct configuration (either wrong setup or default parameters
aren't suitable for the machine that size).  For example, dbench is
one of them.  We are working on characterize these workloads to make
sure our setup is meaningful.

We are also looking through fileio data.  I think we understand the drop
in fileio-noop.  But I want to have more definitive understanding before
claim a real regression.  Same thing with cfq.

- Ken

-
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/