From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.41-mm1 with contest
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:26:14 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1034155574.3da3f636b97df@kolivas.net> (raw)
Here are the contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmark results for 2.5.41-mm1
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 67.7 98 0 0 1.01
2.5.38 [3] 72.0 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.39 [2] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.40 [1] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07
2.5.41 [1] 73.8 93 0 0 1.10
2.5.41-mm1 [3] 73.3 92 0 0 1.09
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 106.5 59 112 43 1.59
2.5.38 [3] 89.5 74 34 28 1.33
2.5.39 [2] 91.2 73 36 28 1.36
2.5.40 [2] 82.8 80 25 23 1.23
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 98.0 69 45 33 1.46
2.5.41 [1] 91.1 73 38 30 1.36
2.5.41-mm1 [3] 88.8 75 32 27 1.32
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 492.6 14 38 10 7.33
2.5.38 [1] 4000.0 1 500 1 59.55
2.5.39 [2] 423.9 18 30 11 6.31
2.5.40 [1] 315.7 25 22 10 4.70
2.5.40-mm2 [2] 208.0 38 12 10 3.10
2.5.41 [2] 607.5 13 47 12 9.04
2.5.41-mm1 [3] 307.7 26 18 10 4.58
Significantly better than the new IO based choking in 2.5.41.
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [3] 100.0 72 33 3 1.49
2.5.38 [3] 107.3 70 34 3 1.60
2.5.39 [2] 103.1 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.40 [2] 102.5 72 31 3 1.53
2.5.40-mm2 [2] 165.1 44 38 2 2.46
2.5.41 [1] 101.6 73 30 3 1.51
2.5.41-mm1 [3] 144.6 50 37 2 2.15
Subtle differences only between 2.5.40-mm2 and 2.5.41-mm1 except for mem_load
which shows some relaxing of the aggressive swap avoiding in 2.5.40-mm2, but
still significantly longer than 2.5.41.
Experimental loads:
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [2] 134.1 54 14 5 2.00
2.5.38 [2] 100.5 76 9 5 1.50
2.5.39 [2] 101.3 74 14 6 1.51
2.5.40 [1] 101.5 73 13 5 1.51
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 102.7 75 7 4 1.53
2.5.41 [1] 101.1 75 7 4 1.51
2.5.41-mm1 [3] 106.8 70 5 3 1.59
Slight drop off here, with longer kernel compile time despite doing less load work.
lslr_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [1] 89.8 77 1 20 1.34
2.5.38 [1] 99.1 71 1 20 1.48
2.5.39 [1] 101.3 70 2 24 1.51
2.5.40 [1] 97.0 72 1 21 1.44
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 94.3 75 1 21 1.40
2.5.41 [1] 93.6 75 1 18 1.39
2.5.41-mm1 [3] 96.8 72 1 21 1.44
tarc_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [2] 106.5 70 1 8 1.59
2.5.38 [1] 97.2 79 1 6 1.45
2.5.39 [1] 91.8 83 1 6 1.37
2.5.40 [1] 96.9 80 1 6 1.44
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 91.9 82 1 6 1.37
2.5.41 [1] 93.3 81 1 6 1.39
2.5.41-mm1 [3] 91.6 81 1 5 1.36
tarx_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.19 [1] 132.4 55 2 9 1.97
2.5.38 [1] 120.5 63 2 8 1.79
2.5.39 [1] 108.3 69 1 6 1.61
2.5.40 [1] 110.7 68 1 6 1.65
2.5.40-mm2 [1] 188.1 39 3 7 2.80
2.5.41 [2] 138.8 53 2 8 2.07
2.5.41-mm1 [3] 188.4 43 2 7 2.80
Con
reply other threads:[~2002-10-09 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=1034155574.3da3f636b97df@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--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®