> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, David B. Rees wrote:
>
[SNIPPED]
> Richard, perhaps a few runs with a profiling-instrumented kernel (the IKD
> patch provides this I think?) would be instructive. It would also be
> useful if the span of the tests was less than 15 kernel revisions; is the
> degradation "creeping", or does it jump in particular versions?
>
> mean([322,355,362,328,311,306,329,341,332]) = 331.7778
> var([322,355,362,328,311,306,329,341,332]) = 343.9444
> std([322,355,362,328,311,306,329,341,332]) = 18.5457
>
> mean([416,408,398,328,422,432,381,396,398]) = 397.6667
> var([416,408,398,328,422,432,381,396,398]) = 918.5000
> std([416,408,398,328,422,432,381,396,398]) = 30.3068
>
> Interesting that the increase in standard deviation is disproportionate
> with the increase of the mean... hmm...
Object files are not likely to be put the same place on the disk
because they are all deleted ahead of time, therefore I would expect
that the standard deviations would not track since a major bottleneck
is I/O. About all one could expect is that the kernel would build
at _about_ the same rate.
I don't have a lot of versions that will run on that machine. It's a
fast SMP machine and there was a lot of bugs in early SMP code, so
I can't do a lot of checking for trends.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
Penguin : Linux version 2.1.123 on an i586 machine (66.15 BogoMips).
Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/