Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm7 with contest | Date | Sat, 1 Feb 2003 12:09:49 +1100 |
| |
On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 11:55 am, Nick Piggin wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > >On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 11:37 am, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Con Kolivas wrote: > >>>Seems the fix for "reads starves everything" works. Affected the tar > >>> loads too? > >> > >>Yes, at the cost of throughput, however for now it is probably > >>the best way to go. Hopefully anticipatory scheduling will provide > >>as good or better kernel compile times and better throughput. > >> > >>Con, tell me, are "Loads" normalised to the time they run for? > >>Is it possible to get a finer grain result for the load tests? > > > >No, the load is the absolute number of times the load successfully > > completed. We battled with the code for a while to see if there were ways > > to get more accurate load numbers but if you write a 256Mb file you can > > only tell if it completes the write or not; not how much has been written > > when you stop the write. Same goes with read etc. The load rate is a more > > meaningful number but we haven't gotten around to implementing that in > > the result presentation. > > I don't know how the contest code works, but if you split that into > a number of smaller writes it should work?
Yes it would but the load effect is significantly diminished. By writing a file the size==physical ram the load effect is substantial.
> >Load rate would be: > > > >loads / ( load_compile_time - no_load_compile_time ) > > I think loads / time_load_ran_for should be ok (ie, give you loads per time > interval). This would be more useful if your loads were getting more > efficient > or less because it is possible that an improvement would lower compile time > _and_ loads, but overall the loads were getting done quicker.
I found the following is how loads occur almost always: noload time: 60 load time kernal a: 80, loads 20 load time kernel b: 100, loads 40 load time kernel c: 90, loads 30
and loads/total time wouldnt show this effect as kernel c would appear to have a better load rate
if there was load time kernel d: 80, loads 40
that would be more significant no? - 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/
| |