Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:05:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:05:54 -0400 Received: from c16598.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.243.217]:40380 "HELO pc.kolivas.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:05:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1030929021.3d72ba7dadbe7@kolivas.net> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:10:21 +1000 From: Con Kolivas To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Benchmarks for performance patches (-ck) for 2.4.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1167 Lines: 28 My merged patchset (http://kernel.kolivas.net) was designed to improve system responsiveness. I have yet to find a good benchmark that measures such a thing. However, in response to criticism about not providing benchmarks I have made available some standard benchmarks at the excellent resources of the open source development laboratory scalable test platform. They are available here: http://www.osdl.org/stp my patchsets are the following: -ck5 patch is patch #781 -ck5-rmap is #782 -ck5-ll is #783 I have conducted some basic tests on #781 and the numbers show it is at least equivalent to stock 2.4.19 (#747), although as I said none of these benchmarks are designed to test desktop system responsiveness. Please feel free to conduct any tests you like on these patches. I would be interested to hear if anyone can suggest the most suitable benchmark. Please cc me to ensure I receive any comments. Con Kolivas - 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/