Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:04:42 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm7 with contest |
| |
Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net> wrote: > > On Saturday 01 Feb 2003 10:01 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > ... > > > io_load: > > > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > > > 2.5.59 3 153 50.3 8 13.7 1.94 > > > 2.5.59-mm6 2 90 83.3 2 6.7 1.15 > > > 2.5.59-mm7 5 110 68.2 2 6.4 1.41 > > > read_load: > > > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > > > 2.5.59 3 102 76.5 5 4.9 1.29 > > > 2.5.59-mm6 3 733 10.8 56 6.3 9.40 > > > 2.5.59-mm7 4 90 84.4 1 1.3 1.15 > > > > The background loads took some punishment. > > Yes and I'd say a ratio of only 1.15 suggests kernel compilation got an unfair > share of the resources.
A very important metric is system-wide idle/IO-wait CPU time. As long as that is kept nice and low, we can then finetune the starvation and fairness aspects.
- 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/
| |