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

From: William Lee Irwin III (
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 12:24:31 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.

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:05:58AM -0700, Robert Love wrote:
> 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.

It would be helpful to get more accurate time accounting a la Mike
Galbraith's patches.

-- wli
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