Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 05:21:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 05:21:06 -0500 Received: from web13105.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.174.150]:16649 "HELO web13105.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 05:20:52 -0500 Message-ID: <20011108102048.99358.qmail@web13105.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 02:20:48 -0800 (PST) From: szonyi calin Subject: Re: Q:Howto benchmark preemptible kernel ? To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rml@tech9.net In-Reply-To: <3BE99992.A6BD18F4@zip.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- Andrew Morton wrote: > > None of these patches make any significant > difference > to throughput of anything, really. > Shell scripts and related tools (i.e. make) run faster. > If you have a particular latency-sensitive > application then > that's the thing which you should be testing with. > Gcc seems to be a "latency-sensitive application" because it runs faster (but it could be the mm improvements in kernel 2.4 -- i have't use a non-preemptible kernel from a long time ) > There's a modified version of Mark Hahn's `realfeel' > app in > http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/amlat.tar.gz > which I find to be a convenient way of > quantitatively > determining latencies. There are some grubby > scripts > in there which create graphical output too. > > I'll give it a try. Thanks __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com - 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/