Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> Here follow the latest benchmarks with contest (http://contest.kolivas.net)
>
> noload:
> Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> 2.4.19 67.71 98% 1.00*
> 2.5.38 72.38 94% 1.07
> 2.5.38-mm3 73.00 93% 1.08
> 2.5.39 73.17 93% 1.08
>
> process_load:
> Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> 2.4.19 110.75 57% 1.64*
> 2.5.38 85.71 79% 1.27
> 2.5.38-mm3 96.32 72% 1.42*
> 2.5.39 88.18 77% 1.30
well that's funny.
> io_load:
> Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> 2.4.19 216.05 33% 3.19
> 2.5.38 887.76 8% 13.11*
> 2.5.38-mm3 105.17 70% 1.55*
> 2.5.39 216.81 37% 3.20
-mm3 has fifo_batch=16. 2.5.39 has fifo_batch=32.
> mem_load:
> Kernel Time CPU Ratio
> 2.4.19 105.40 70% 1.56
> 2.5.38 107.89 73% 1.59
> 2.5.38-mm3 117.09 63% 1.73*
> 2.5.39 103.72 72% 1.53
2.5's swapout is still fairly synchronously sucky. So low-latency
writeout could be advantageous there. This difference is probably
also the fifo_batch thing. Or maybe statistical?
I did some testing with your latest. 4xPIII, mem=512m, SCSI,
tag depth = 0, 2.5.39-mm1 candidate:
fifo_batch=32:
noload 2:34.53 291%
cpuload 2:36.20 286%
memload 2:19.44 333%
ioloadhalf 2:34.81 303%
ioloadfull 3:15.47 238%
(err. memload sped it up!)
fifo_batch=16:
noload 2:00.03 380%
cpuload 2:27.62 304%
memload 2:22.59 326%
ioloadhalf 2:33.75 306%
ioloadfull 2:59.18 259%
- Something went horridly wrong in the first `noload' test.
- fifo_batch=16 is better than 32.
- you see a 4x hit from io_load. I see a 1.5x hit.
This is all pretty wild. I'll go profile process_load a bit.
BTW, please change all the
#define dprintf(...) printf(__VA_ARGS__)
to
#define dprintf(x...) printf(x)
so people who use crufty old compilers can build it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:00:35 EST