Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results

From: Chris Friesen (cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 17:19:50 EST

Next message: Robert L. Harris: "SNARE and Ptrace?"
Previous message: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results"
In reply to: Larry McVoy: "Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results"
Next in thread: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Larry McVoy wrote:

> work ~/LMbench2/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu ENOUGH=1000000 time bw_pipe
> Pipe bandwidth: 655.37 MB/sec
> real 0m23.411s
> user 0m0.480s
> sys 0m1.180s
>
> work ~/LMbench2/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu time bw_pipe
> Pipe bandwidth: 809.81 MB/sec
>
> real 0m2.821s
> user 0m0.480s
> sys 0m1.180s

Why the difference? Is it being scheduled out? Should lmbench be (optionally)
putting itself into a realtime scheduling class?

Chris

-- Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com

- 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/

Next message: Robert L. Harris: "SNARE and Ptrace?"
Previous message: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results"
In reply to: Larry McVoy: "Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results"
Next in thread: Martin J. Bligh: "Re: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5 -- updated results"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:17 EST