mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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-----


             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®