Quoting Andrew Morton <email@example.com>:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Quoting Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Correct. contest was run with gcc2.95.3 only. The kernels were
> > > with
> > > > 2.95.3 and 3.2 respectively.
> > >
> > > I think you made a mistake. Please rerun. Just one data point will do.
> > >
> > Ok here are two points to confirm the results and their reproducibility:
> > No Load:
> > 2.5.38 68.25 99%
> > 2.5.38-gcc32 103.03 99%
> > 2.5.38-gcc32a 103.47 99%
> > Process Load:
> > 2.5.38 71.60 95%
> > 2.5.38-gcc32 112.98 91%
> > 2.5.38-gcc32a 113.60 91%
> beats the hell out of me. Frankly, I *still* think
> you made a mistake (at least on the io load thing)
> because the CPU time went down by a mile - it was
> waiting on disk all the time.
If you think I've made a mistake then you're probably correct. I'm investigating
this further. Please do NOT pass judgement on these benchmarks until I
completely retest everything, ensuring gcc is fixed for everything except the
kernel being tested. Disregard until I have a fresh set of confirmed results.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
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 - 22:00:38 EST