* hackbench?
@ 2004-09-18 18:07 Andries.Brouwer
2004-09-18 18:56 ` hackbench? Diego Calleja
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andries.Brouwer @ 2004-09-18 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On http://developer.osdl.org/craiger/hackbench one finds hackbench.c
and the result that 2.6 is much better than 2.4 where scheduling is
concerned.
I was shown results that go in the other direction, so just tried
on a machine here.
50 processes
2.4.26: 24 sec
2.6.0t11: 72 sec
2.6.8.1: 120 sec
20 processes
2.4.26: 8.6 sec
2.6.0t11: 29 sec
2.6.8.1: 30 sec
This was on a 256 MB 400 MHz Pentium II.
Andries
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: hackbench?
2004-09-18 18:07 hackbench? Andries.Brouwer
@ 2004-09-18 18:56 ` Diego Calleja
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Diego Calleja @ 2004-09-18 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andries.Brouwer; +Cc: linux-kernel
El Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:07:18 +0200 (MEST) <Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl> escribió:
> I was shown results that go in the other direction, so just tried
> on a machine here.
In a 512 MB dual p3 machine I got this: (hackbench 100)
2.4.26: Time: 38.123
2.6.9-rc2-mm1: Time: 19.505
BTW, in the 2.6 case the kernel didn't have a very nice behaviour: A couple of
seconds after starting hackbench(after doing the benchmarks), Xorg stopped
running until hackbench finished. X was using nice 0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-18 18:56 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-18 18:07 hackbench? Andries.Brouwer
2004-09-18 18:56 ` hackbench? Diego Calleja
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®