2.5.43 with contest
Here are the latest contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks including 2.5.43
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.5.38 [3] 72.0 93 0 0 1.07 2.5.39 [2] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07 2.5.40 [1] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08 2.5.41 [1] 73.8 93 0 0 1.10 2.5.42 [2] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 78.1 93 0 0 1.16 2.5.43 [2] 74.6 92 0 0 1.11
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.5.38 [3] 89.5 74 34 28 1.33 2.5.39 [2] 91.2 73 36 28 1.36 2.5.40 [2] 82.8 80 25 23 1.23 2.5.41 [1] 91.1 73 38 30 1.36 2.5.42 [1] 98.0 69 44 33 1.46 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 100.9 69 48 33 1.50 2.5.43 [2] 99.7 71 44 31 1.48
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.5.38 [1] 97.2 79 1 6 1.45 2.5.39 [1] 91.8 83 1 6 1.37 2.5.40 [1] 96.9 80 1 6 1.44 2.5.41 [1] 93.3 81 1 6 1.39 2.5.42 [1] 96.7 80 1 7 1.44 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 96.2 80 1 6 1.43 2.5.43 [1] 97.6 79 1 7 1.45
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.5.38 [1] 120.5 63 2 8 1.79 2.5.39 [1] 108.3 69 1 6 1.61 2.5.40 [1] 110.7 68 1 6 1.65 2.5.41 [2] 138.8 53 2 8 2.07 2.5.42 [1] 112.7 66 1 7 1.68 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 203.0 37 2 7 3.02 2.5.43 [1] 114.9 67 1 7 1.71
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.5.38 [1] 4000.0 1 500 1 59.55 2.5.39 [2] 423.9 18 30 11 6.31 2.5.40 [1] 315.7 25 22 10 4.70 2.5.41 [2] 607.5 13 47 12 9.04 2.5.42 [1] 849.1 9 69 12 12.64 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 393.1 19 27 11 5.85 2.5.43 [1] 578.9 13 45 12 8.62
Difference between 2.5.42 and .43 is likely to be due to lack of enough runs to get a real average. They're probably the same (ie. more than the -mm tree).
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.5.38 [2] 100.5 76 9 5 1.50 2.5.39 [2] 101.3 74 14 6 1.51 2.5.40 [1] 101.5 73 13 5 1.51 2.5.41 [1] 101.1 75 7 4 1.51 2.5.42 [1] 102.0 75 8 5 1.52 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 107.1 72 6 4 1.59 2.5.43 [3] 117.3 64 6 3 1.75
This is the only significant difference. Continually reading a large file seems to have caused a new slow down.
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.5.38 [1] 99.1 71 1 20 1.48 2.5.39 [1] 101.3 70 2 24 1.51 2.5.40 [1] 97.0 72 1 21 1.44 2.5.41 [1] 93.6 75 1 18 1.39 2.5.42 [1] 97.5 71 1 20 1.45 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 97.1 73 1 21 1.45 2.5.43 [2] 93.0 76 1 18 1.38
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio 2.5.38 [3] 107.3 70 34 3 1.60 2.5.39 [2] 103.1 72 31 3 1.53 2.5.40 [2] 102.5 72 31 3 1.53 2.5.41 [1] 101.6 73 30 3 1.51 2.5.42 [1] 104.0 72 30 3 1.55 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 109.6 67 27 2 1.63 2.5.43 [1] 102.0 75 28 2 1.52
Hardware: 1133Mhz P3 with 224Mb Ram, 5400rpm ATA100 HD with reiserFS. IO loads on same disk as kernel compile.
Con.
Con,
Why are you bothering to show the older 2.5.3x series of kernels, but dropping the 2.4.18 results? Wouldn't it make sense to see how the latest kernels in each section were doing?
Con> Here are the latest contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks including 2.5.43
Con> noload:
Con> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio Con> 2.5.38 [3] 72.0 93 0 0 1.07 Con> 2.5.39 [2] 72.2 93 0 0 1.07 Con> 2.5.40 [1] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08 Con> 2.5.41 [1] 73.8 93 0 0 1.10 Con> 2.5.42 [2] 72.5 93 0 0 1.08 Con> 2.5.42-mm3 [2] 78.1 93 0 0 1.16 Con> 2.5.43 [2] 74.6 92 0 0 1.11
Thanks,
John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Quoted 5 lines · John Stoffel
Con,
Why are you bothering to show the older 2.5.3x series of kernels, but dropping the 2.4.18 results? Wouldn't it make sense to see how the latest kernels in each section were doing?
My main interest in doing these is to help 2.5 development as 2.4 is not changing dramatically anywhere in the near future. As the number of data points increase the ability to sift through the information will decrease. The comparison to 2.4 kernels has been made in the past and I felt that showing the progression of 2.5 would be more helpful as the change made by each step could be quantified. I dont mind posting a full set of benchmarks but people are less likely to read through a huge set of data trying to find the relevant information. If someone feels I am in error I would be happy to change what I'm doing.
Cheers,
Con.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9rX4NF6dfvkL3i1gRAq8oAJ9QwnsPvNx4P7MDZdDWJOonA/HDUgCfTKj3 hReHZbmbXsCjCkuEJwOrDpQ=
=lun1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----