From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm8 with contest
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 00:22:02 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030207002202.5066e9c2.akpm@digeo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200302061908.32848.conman@kolivas.net>
Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:37 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > ..
> > >
> > > This seems to be creeping up to the same as 2.5.59
> > > ...
> > > and this seems to be taking significantly longer
> > > ...
> > > And this load which normally changes little has significantly different
> > > results.
> >
> > There were no I/O scheduler changes between -mm7 and -mm8. I
> > demand a recount!
>
> Repeated mm7 and mm8.
> Recount-One for Martin, two for Martin. Same results; not the i/o scheduler
> responsible for the changes, but I have a sneaking suspicion another
> scheduler may be.
Not sure.
With contest 0.60, io_load, ext3, with the scheduler changes:
Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 161 user: 181 system: 16
Finished io_load: elapsed: 162 user: 0 system: 17 loads: 9
Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 155 user: 179 system: 15
Finished io_load: elapsed: 155 user: 0 system: 17 loads: 9
Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 166 user: 180 system: 15
Finished io_load: elapsed: 166 user: 0 system: 18 loads: 10
With the CPU scheduler changes backed out:
Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 137 user: 181 system: 14
Finished io_load: elapsed: 138 user: 0 system: 9 loads: 5
Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 142 user: 181 system: 14
Finished io_load: elapsed: 142 user: 0 system: 9 loads: 5
Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 133 user: 181 system: 15
Finished io_load: elapsed: 133 user: 0 system: 12 loads: 7
So there's some diminution there, not a lot.
With no_load:
Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 108 user: 179 system: 12
Finished no_load: elapsed: 108 user: 7 system: 12 loads: 0
Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 107 user: 179 system: 13
Finished no_load: elapsed: 107 user: 7 system: 12 loads: 0
Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 110 user: 178 system: 12
Finished no_load: elapsed: 110 user: 8 system: 14 loads: 0
It's very good either way. Probably with the scheduler changes we're
hitting a better balance.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-07 8:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-05 11:21 Con Kolivas
2003-02-05 20:37 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-06 1:02 ` Nick Piggin
2003-02-06 8:08 ` Con Kolivas
2003-02-07 8:22 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2003-02-07 10:26 ` Con Kolivas
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=20030207002202.5066e9c2.akpm@digeo.com \
--to=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=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
Powered by JetHome