Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:46:22 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.44-mm6 contest results |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > > io_load: > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > 2.5.44 [3] 873.8 9 69 12 12.24 > 2.5.44-mm1 [3] 347.3 22 35 15 4.86 > 2.5.44-mm2 [3] 294.2 28 19 10 4.12 > 2.5.44-mm4 [3] 358.7 23 25 10 5.02 > 2.5.44-mm5 [4] 270.7 29 18 11 3.79 > 2.5.44-mm6 [3] 284.1 28 20 10 3.98
Jens, I think I prefer fifo_batch=16. We do need to expose these in /somewhere so people can fiddle with them.
>... > mem_load: > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > 2.5.44 [3] 114.3 67 30 2 1.60 > 2.5.44-mm1 [3] 159.7 47 38 2 2.24 > 2.5.44-mm2 [3] 116.6 64 29 2 1.63 > 2.5.44-mm4 [3] 114.9 65 28 2 1.61 > 2.5.44-mm5 [4] 114.1 65 30 2 1.60 > 2.5.44-mm6 [3] 226.9 33 50 2 3.18 > > Mem load has dropped off again
Well that's one interpretation. The other is "goody, that pesky kernel compile isn't slowing down my important memory-intensive whateveritis so much". It's a tradeoff.
It appears that this change was caused by increasing the default value of /proc/sys/vm/page-cluster from 3 to 4. I am surprised.
It was only of small benefit in other tests so I'll ditch that one.
Thanks.
(You're still testing with all IO against the same disk, yes? Please rememeber that things change quite significantly when the swap IO or the io_load is against a different device) - 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/
| |