Re: [BENCHMARK] 100Hz preempt v nopreempt contest results

From: Robert Love (
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 12:05:58 EST

On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 23:39, Con Kolivas wrote:

> Note this time the ratio is less useful since they are both 100Hz. The
> difference this time shows a large preempt improvement in process_load much
> like 1000Hz did. Interestingly, even unloaded kernels no_load and cache_load
> runs are faster with preempt. Only in xtar_load (repeatedly extracting a tar
> with multiple small files) was no preempt faster.

Thanks for running these, Con.

I think this is an example of kernel preemption doing exactly what we
want it to (improve interactive performance)... probably primarily
because of the more accurate timeslice distribution.

Would be interested to figure out why xtar_load is slower.

        Robert Love

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:20 EST