Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> Here are the latest results with 2.5.36 compared with 2.5.34
>
> No Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 68.14 99%
> 2.4.20-pre7 68.11 99%
> 2.5.34 69.88 99%
> 2.4.19-ck7 68.40 98%
> 2.4.19-ck7-rmap 68.73 99%
> 2.4.19-cc 68.37 99%
> 2.5.36 69.58 99%
page_add/remove_rmap. Be interesting to test an Alan kernel too.
> Process Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 81.10 80%
> 2.4.20-pre7 81.92 80%
> 2.5.34 71.39 94%
> 2.5.36 71.80 94%
Ingo ;)
> Mem Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 92.49 77%
> 2.4.20-pre7 92.25 77%
> 2.5.34 138.05 54%
> 2.5.36 132.45 56%
The swapping fix in -mm1 may help here.
> IO Halfmem Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 99.41 70%
> 2.4.20-pre7 99.42 71%
> 2.5.34 74.31 93%
> 2.5.36 94.82 76%
Don't know. Was this with IO load against the same disk as
the one on which the kernel was being compiled, or a different
one? This is a very important factor - one way we're testing the
VM and the other way we're testing the IO scheduler.
> IO Fullmem Load:
> Kernel Time CPU
> 2.4.19 173.00 41%
> 2.4.20-pre7 146.38 48%
> 2.5.34 74.00 94%
> 2.5.36 87.57 81%
If the IO load was against the same disk 2.5 _should_ have sucked,
due to the writes-starves-reads problem which we're working on. So
I assume it was against a different disk. In which case 2.5 should not
have shown these improvements, because all the fixes for this are still
in -mm. hm. Helpful, aren't I?
-
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 23 2002 - 22:00:23 EST