2.4.19-rmap15 with contest

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Here is a set of contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks for 2.4.19-rmap15

noload:

Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.4.18 [5]              71.7    93      0       0       0.99
2.4.19 [5]              69.0    97      0       0       0.95
2.4.19-rmap15 [3]       73.1    92      0       0       1.01

cacherun:

Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.4.18 [2]              66.6    99      0       0       0.92
2.4.19 [2]              68.0    99      0       0       0.94
2.4.19-rmap15 [3]       67.7    99      0       0       0.94

process_load:

Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.4.18 [3]              109.5   57      119     44      1.51
2.4.19 [3]              106.5   59      112     43      1.47
2.4.19-rmap15 [3]       112.7   56      123     44      1.56

Marginally slower here.

ctar_load:

Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.4.18 [3]              117.4   63      1       7       1.62
2.4.19 [2]              106.5   70      1       8       1.47
2.4.19-rmap15 [3]       98.4    77      1       6       1.36

First significant difference. Notably faster while creating tars.

xtar_load:

Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.4.18 [3]              150.8   49      2       8       2.09
2.4.19 [1]              132.4   55      2       9       1.83
2.4.19-rmap15 [3]       130.2   55      1       19      1.80

io_load:

Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.4.18 [3]              474.1   15      36      10      6.56
2.4.19 [3]              492.6   14      38      10      6.81
2.4.19-rmap15 [3]       222.9   33      13      9       3.08

Well this is nice. io_load is the most felt of the slowdowns and rmap manages to blunt the effect io load has (note io load uses quite a bit of ram to do the io load).

read_load:

Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.4.18 [3]              102.3   70      6       3       1.41
2.4.19 [2]              134.1   54      14      5       1.85
2.4.19-rmap15 [3]       129.5   56      20      5       1.79

list_load:

Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.4.18 [3]              90.2    76      1       17      1.25
2.4.19 [1]              89.8    77      1       20      1.24
2.4.19-rmap15 [3]       90.4    76      0       12      1.25

mem_load:

Kernel [runs]           Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
2.4.18 [3]              103.3   70      32      3       1.43
2.4.19 [3]              100.0   72      33      3       1.38
2.4.19-rmap15 [3]       105.3   72      37      5       1.46

Note that while mem_load is marginally slower with rmap, the machine was in a much more usable state after running the mem_load. Much less was coming back from swap upon using it after the benchmark, and contest cant show this effect.

Looking good Rik.

Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE933TmF6dfvkL3i1gRAsPGAJsGcgRoKaMUtIVebjIHlFeyuzBgeACePG7N GUhW6kzYg7amphsfe4W5GQ4=
=+NY1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----