From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: marcelo@conectiva.com.br, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Subject: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.{18,19{-ck9},20rc1{-aa1}} with contest
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 13:00:19 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200211091300.32127.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here are some contest benchmarks of recent 2.4 kernels (this is mainly to test
2.4.20-rc1/aa1):
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [5] 71.7 93 0 0 1.00
2.4.19 [5] 69.0 97 0 0 0.97
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 68.8 97 0 0 0.96
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 72.2 93 0 0 1.01
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 71.9 94 0 0 1.01
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [2] 66.6 99 0 0 0.93
2.4.19 [2] 68.0 99 0 0 0.95
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 66.1 99 0 0 0.93
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 67.2 99 0 0 0.94
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 67.4 99 0 0 0.94
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 109.5 57 119 44 1.53
2.4.19 [3] 106.5 59 112 43 1.49
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 94.3 70 83 32 1.32
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 110.7 58 119 43 1.55
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [3] 110.5 58 117 43 1.55
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 117.4 63 1 7 1.64
2.4.19 [2] 106.5 70 1 8 1.49
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 110.5 71 1 9 1.55
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 102.1 72 1 7 1.43
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [3] 107.1 69 1 7 1.50
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 150.8 49 2 8 2.11
2.4.19 [1] 132.4 55 2 9 1.85
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 138.6 58 2 11 1.94
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 180.7 40 3 8 2.53
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [3] 166.6 44 2 7 2.33
First noticeable difference. With repeated extracting of tars while compiling
kernels 2.4.20-rc1 seems to be slower and aa1 curbs it just a little.
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 474.1 15 36 10 6.64
2.4.19 [3] 492.6 14 38 10 6.90
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 140.6 49 5 5 1.97
2.4.20-rc1 [2] 1142.2 6 90 10 16.00
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 1132.5 6 90 10 15.86
Well this is interesting. 2.4.20-rc1 seems to have improved it's ability to do
IO work. Unfortunately it is now busy starving the scheduler in the mean
time, much like the 2.5 kernels did before the deadline scheduler was put in.
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 102.3 70 6 3 1.43
2.4.19 [2] 134.1 54 14 5 1.88
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 77.4 85 11 9 1.08
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 173.2 43 20 5 2.43
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [3] 150.6 51 16 5 2.11
Also a noticeable difference, repeatedly reading a large file while trying to
compile a kernel has slowed down in 2.4.20-rc1 and aa1 blunts this effect
somewhat.
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 90.2 76 1 17 1.26
2.4.19 [1] 89.8 77 1 20 1.26
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 85.2 79 1 22 1.19
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 88.8 77 0 12 1.24
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 88.1 78 1 16 1.23
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.18 [3] 103.3 70 32 3 1.45
2.4.19 [3] 100.0 72 33 3 1.40
2.4.19-ck9 [2] 78.3 88 31 8 1.10
2.4.20-rc1 [3] 105.9 69 32 2 1.48
2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 106.3 69 33 3 1.49
It would seem most of the changes from 2.4.19 to 2.4.20-rc1 are consistent
with increased IO throughput but this happens at the expense of doing other
tasks. The -aa addons help with this but surprisingly not with mem_loading.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9zGw5F6dfvkL3i1gRAsN8AKCMg2QvnGMhdMlGRdT7sR01ui6gogCbBrxy
imqAHOMc9ZXwAjoohbd9av4=
=Plvk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next reply other threads:[~2002-11-09 1:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-09 2:00 Con Kolivas [this message]
2002-11-09 2:36 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-09 3:26 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-09 4:15 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-09 5:12 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-09 11:21 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-09 13:09 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-09 13:35 ` Stephen Lord
2002-11-09 13:54 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-09 21:12 ` Arador
2002-11-10 2:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-09 21:53 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-10 10:09 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-10 16:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 4:26 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-10 10:12 ` Kjartan Maraas
2002-11-10 10:17 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-10 16:27 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-09 11:20 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-10 2:44 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 3:56 ` Matt Reppert
2002-11-10 9:58 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-10 10:06 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-10 16:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 16:20 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 19:32 ` Rik van Riel
2002-11-10 20:10 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 20:52 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-10 21:05 ` Rik van Riel
2002-11-11 1:54 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 4:03 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-11 4:06 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 4:22 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-11 4:39 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 5:10 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-11 5:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 7:58 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-11-11 13:56 ` Rik van Riel
2002-11-11 13:45 ` Rik van Riel
2002-11-11 14:09 ` Jens Axboe
2002-11-11 15:48 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-11 15:43 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-10 20:56 ` Andrew Morton
2002-11-11 1:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-11-09 3:44 Dieter Nützel
2002-11-09 3:54 ` Con Kolivas
2002-11-09 4:02 ` Dieter Nützel
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=200211091300.32127.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo@conectiva.com.br \
/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®