linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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