From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: 2.5.68-mm2
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:13:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1661460000.1051218805@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030423233954.D9036@redhat.com>
>> The performance improvement was about 25% of systime according to my
>> measurements - I don't call that insignificant.
>
> Never, ever use changes in system time as a justification for a patch. We
> all know that Linux's user/system time accounting is patently unreliable.
Mmmm. I'm not particularly convinced by that ... I do 5 runs for every
benchmark and compare the results, and it seems very consistent to me.
For kernbench, it's interesting to look at system time - but obviously
keeping an eye on elapsed time as well, particularly for things like
scheduler patches.
> Remember Nyquist? Talk to me about differences in wall clock and your
> comments will be more interesting.
OK, well then you need to look at something that's not totally dominated
by gcc anyway. I know everyone hates SDET as it's "closed" but I'll try
to rerun with aim7 at some point. A real 20% improvement in throughput
is not to be sniffed at ...
DISCLAIMER: SPEC(tm) and the benchmark name SDET(tm) are registered
trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This
benchmarking was performed for research purposes only, and the run results
are non-compliant and not-comparable with any published results.
Results are shown as percentages of the first set displayed
SDET 1 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.68 100.0% 0.7%
2.5.68-objrmap 105.7% 0.4%
SDET 2 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.68 100.0% 2.8%
2.5.68-objrmap 108.2% 0.7%
SDET 4 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.68 100.0% 1.0%
2.5.68-objrmap 112.0% 1.4%
SDET 8 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.68 100.0% 0.6%
2.5.68-objrmap 122.8% 1.3%
SDET 16 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.68 100.0% 0.1%
2.5.68-objrmap 117.3% 0.8%
SDET 32 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.68 100.0% 0.4%
2.5.68-objrmap 118.5% 0.4%
SDET 64 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.68 100.0% 0.2%
2.5.68-objrmap 121.2% 0.3%
SDET 128 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.68 100.0% 0.1%
2.5.68-objrmap 118.6% 0.2%
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-24 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-23 8:20 2.5.68-mm2 Andrew Morton
2003-04-23 9:59 ` 2.5.68-mm2 William Lee Irwin III
2003-04-23 16:50 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Robert Love
2003-04-23 16:57 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-23 17:11 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Robert Love
2003-04-24 9:14 ` 2.5.68-mm2 William Lee Irwin III
2003-04-23 12:08 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Ed Tomlinson
2003-04-23 12:37 ` 2.5.68-mm2 William Lee Irwin III
2003-04-23 14:25 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-23 14:51 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-23 15:14 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Alex Tomas
2003-04-23 21:46 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Andrew Morton
2003-04-23 21:47 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-24 3:39 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Benjamin LaHaise
2003-04-24 21:13 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2003-04-24 23:13 ` objrmap (was 2.5.68-mm2) Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-24 3:36 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Benjamin LaHaise
2003-04-24 20:24 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Bill Davidsen
2003-04-24 20:33 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Benjamin LaHaise
2003-04-25 17:56 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Bill Davidsen
2003-04-25 18:20 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Randy.Dunlap
2003-04-25 18:27 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Robert Love
2003-04-25 18:49 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-26 10:34 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Bill Davidsen
2003-04-26 15:34 ` 2.5.68-mm2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-05-01 6:19 ` [BUG] 2.5.68-mm2 and list.h Alexander Hoogerhuis
2003-05-01 6:31 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1661460000.1051218805@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=bcrl@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox