Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.59-mm8 with contest | Date | Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:26:20 +1100 |
| |
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:22 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:37 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > .. > > > > > > > > This seems to be creeping up to the same as 2.5.59 > > > > ... > > > > and this seems to be taking significantly longer > > > > ... > > > > And this load which normally changes little has significantly > > > > different results. > > > > > > There were no I/O scheduler changes between -mm7 and -mm8. I > > > demand a recount! > > > > Repeated mm7 and mm8. > > Recount-One for Martin, two for Martin. Same results; not the i/o > > scheduler responsible for the changes, but I have a sneaking suspicion > > another scheduler may be. > > Not sure. > > With contest 0.60, io_load, ext3, with the scheduler changes: > > Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 161 user: 181 system: 16 > Finished io_load: elapsed: 162 user: 0 system: 17 loads: 9 > Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 155 user: 179 system: 15 > Finished io_load: elapsed: 155 user: 0 system: 17 loads: 9 > Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 166 user: 180 system: 15 > Finished io_load: elapsed: 166 user: 0 system: 18 loads: 10 >
average of 162/108 (io_load over no_load) prolongs it 50% for one process (disk writing) when eight processes are running (kernel compile) on my uniprocessor results it's 92% prolongation for one v four
> > With the CPU scheduler changes backed out: > > Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 137 user: 181 system: 14 > Finished io_load: elapsed: 138 user: 0 system: 9 loads: 5 > Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 142 user: 181 system: 14 > Finished io_load: elapsed: 142 user: 0 system: 9 loads: 5 > Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 133 user: 181 system: 15 > Finished io_load: elapsed: 133 user: 0 system: 12 loads: 7 > > So there's some diminution there, not a lot.
average of 133/108 prolongs it 27% for one process when eight processes are running. on my results it's 44% prolongation
> With no_load: > > Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 108 user: 179 system: 12 > Finished no_load: elapsed: 108 user: 7 system: 12 loads: 0 > Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 107 user: 179 system: 13 > Finished no_load: elapsed: 107 user: 7 system: 12 loads: 0 > Finished compiling kernel: elapsed: 110 user: 178 system: 12 > Finished no_load: elapsed: 110 user: 8 system: 14 loads: 0 > > > It's very good either way. Probably with the scheduler changes we're > hitting a better balance.
I would have thought that the one disk write heavy process is getting more than the lion's share with the new scheduler changes, and the mm7 results were fairer?
Con - 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/
| |