Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:58:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:58:46 -0500 Received: from brutus.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.146]:18677 "EHLO brutus.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:58:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:27:31 -0200 (BRDT) From: Rik van Riel To: Steven Cole cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vii@penguinpowered.com, mojomofo@mojomofo.com Subject: Re: UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12 In-Reply-To: <00121116022700.12045@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: 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 On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote: > Building kernels is something we do so frequently and this test > is so easy to reproduce is why I performed it in the first > place. I think it may be as good a test of real performance as > some of the more formal benchmarks. Comments anyone? Just one comment. You cannot use a kernel build to measure other things than those subsystems which the kernel build excercises. Things you could measure with a kernel build: scheduling (L2 cache efficiency), fork, readahead, cpu speed, framebuffer speed (in the make dep phase) and maybe hard disk speed. Things you cannot measure with a kernel build: networking, swapping (unless you do a very big parallel build, and even then it's questionable), raw IO speed (the kernel build is latency sensitive, but doesn't need much throughput), ... regards, Rik -- Hollywood goes for world dumbination, Trailer at 11. http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/