From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [BENCHMARK] gcc3.2 v 2.95.3 (contest and linux-2.5.38)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:04:21 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1032750261.3d8e84b5486a9@kolivas.net> (raw)
I performed contest benchmarks on kernel 2.5.38 when the kernel is compiled with
gcc3.2 to gcc2.95.3
warning: The following benchmarks may be disturbing to some viewers:
No Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.5.38 68.25 99%
2.5.38-gcc32 103.03 99%
Process Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.5.38 71.60 95%
2.5.38-gcc32 112.98 91%
IO Half Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.5.38 81.26 90%
2.5.38-gcc32 168.25 70%
IO Full Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.5.38 170.21 42%
2.5.38-gcc32 1405.25 8%
Mem Load:
Kernel Time CPU
2.5.38 104.22 70%
2.5.38-gcc32 153.00 74%
Both kernels had identical configs and contest was run using gcc2.95.3 (I can't
see how this would affect it but tell me if you think it will). The only
difference was the original 2.5.38 was compiled with gcc2.95.3 and -gcc32 was
compiled with gcc3.2
Note the lower performance even with noload, and the totally abysmal performance
under full load. See the logs below for the page fault differences too.
Full logs follow:
2.5.38:
noload Time: 68.25 CPU: 99% Major Faults: 204613 Minor Faults: 255906
process_load Time: 71.60 CPU: 95% Major Faults: 204019 Minor Faults: 255238
io_halfmem Time: 81.26 CPU: 90% Major Faults: 204019 Minor Faults: 255325
Was writing number 4 of a 112Mb sized io_load file after 90 seconds
io_fullmem Time: 170.21 CPU: 42% Major Faults: 204019 Minor Faults: 255272
Was writing number 6 of a 224Mb sized io_load file after 194 seconds
mem_load Time: 104.22 CPU: 70% Major Faults: 204120 Minor Faults: 256271
2.5.38-gcc32:
noload Time: 103.03 CPU: 99% Major Faults: 237750 Minor Faults: 439982
process_load Time: 112.98 CPU: 91% Major Faults: 236958 Minor Faults: 439030
io_halfmem Time: 168.25 CPU: 70% Major Faults: 236958 Minor Faults: 439261
Was writing number 16 of a 112Mb sized io_load file after 202 seconds
io_fullmem Time: 1405.25 CPU: 8% Major Faults: 237199 Minor Faults: 440233
Was writing number 59 of a 224Mb sized io_load file after 1496 seconds
mem_load Time: 153.00 CPU: 74% Major Faults: 237863 Minor Faults: 440524
These are disturbing to me.
Comments?
Con.
next reply other threads:[~2002-09-23 2:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-23 3:04 Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-09-23 3:10 ` Robert Love
2002-09-23 3:16 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-23 11:06 ` Mark Veltzer
2002-09-23 13:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-23 3:28 ` Robert Love
2002-09-23 3:41 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-23 3:46 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-23 3:50 ` Con Kolivas
[not found] ` <3D8E9158.4E3DE029@digeo.com>
[not found] ` <1032754853.3d8e96a520836@kolivas.net>
[not found] ` <3D8E988F.DCB3196D@digeo.com>
2002-09-23 5:13 ` Con Kolivas
2002-09-23 7:20 ` Axel H. Siebenwirth
2002-09-23 3:47 ` Robert Love
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1032750261.3d8e84b5486a9@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®