Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] O1int with contest | From | Roberto Orenstein <> | Date | 02 Jul 2003 13:42:18 -0300 |
| |
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 03:24, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:26, Roberto Orenstein wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > Here are some numbers from three kernels tested on my home machine. > > All threes are 2.5.73 based. > > Vanilla is a plain one, O1int-0307020011 is the latest (as I last > > checked) O1int patch w/o the granularity patch, and > > O1int-granu-0307020011 is the former with granularity. > > Thanks for doing these. > > > One can see that with granularity, the kernel compile suffers a bit, but > > the response is usually high. In my machine, this was the kernel with > > the best responsiveness. > > Can you please describe your experiences? The more feedback I get the more I > can get it working well. > Well, basically I load the machine with some make -j nuts_number_here, and I do some other things. The vanilla kernel always behaves badly, with things like switching windows, loading web pages taking a visible amount of time to get some cpu attention. The others always win. I mean, for every load, ranging from a make -j5 to a make -j25 the system _feels_ better than vanilla. With granularity, it was quite noticeable (but the kernel compiles were noticeable longer too - some you win and some you loose :-). As I said to you on IRC, I wasn't able to make xmms skip with any kernels (does anyone have a recipe for this?), which I guess is the issue that started this thread. The only issue I had was with app startup time (although starting a new X session was indeed faster - strange).
> > Each kernel was run once, except O1int-0307020011 with three iterations. > > This was the first I tested, and as soon I noticed the time it took, I > > decided to run once the others 8). Maybe this has some bad influence on > > the results. I appreciate any comments... > > Ok well here is my summary of the situation. My patch has virtually no effect > on contest results (except perhaps io_other). This is good because my earlier > attempts did affect it, and possibly starved some of the loads. Dare I say > it, contest is not very good at picking up _these_ sort of scheduler tweaks > unless they do something wrong. Sorry if my system responsiveness benchmark > doesn't show this effect; I think they're different. This is more about > picking the right thing to give preference to. There's a long discussion in > that, but I'll try not to get into it.
Well, if things doesn't get worse, it's already a start, right? :-) In fact I believe it's moving forward. It feels clearly better than plain 2.5.73, but I don't know if others share the same view. My tests weren't very scientific nor realistic, it's just a matter of 'looks good'. Although I think 'feels good' is sometimes better than a lot of numbers. If there's a way to get some precise numbers, let me know of it. I thought that contest was a good choice.
> > By the way it doesn't look like your dbench in dbench load actually worked. Dunno what happened, I've Followed All The Instructions(TM). I'll look at this later.
> > O1int still remains a work in progress. I'll test your latest patch later to see the improvements. Should I run another contest on it or doesn't make any difference?
regards, Roberto
- 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/
| |