Russell King wrote:
>
> Rogier Wolff writes:
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> > > What better interactivity ;)
> > Thus to me, 2.4 FEELS much less interactive. When I move windows they
> > don't follow the mouse in real-time.
>
> Interesting observation: in a scrolling rxvt, kernel 2.0 is smoother than
> 2
Rogier Wolff writes:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > What better interactivity ;)
> Thus to me, 2.4 FEELS much less interactive. When I move windows they
> don't follow the mouse in real-time.
Interesting observation: in a scrolling rxvt, kernel 2.0 is smoother than
2.2, which is smoother than 2.4. I hop
Alan Cox wrote:
> > How much of that is due to the fact that the 2.4.0 scheduler interrupts
> > processes more often than 2.2.x? Is the better interactivity worth the
> > slight drop in performance?
>
> What better interactivity ;)
Indeed!
On my dual Celeron workstation, 2.4 looks to me as if
On Tuesday 12 December 2000 13:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
> > Task: make -j3 bzImage for 2.4.0-test12-pre7 kernel tree.
>
> Actually, do it with
>
> make -j3 'MAKE=make -j3' bzImage
>
> A single "-j3" won't do much. It will only build three directorie
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
>
> Task: make -j3 bzImage for 2.4.0-test12-pre7 kernel tree.
Actually, do it with
make -j3 'MAKE=make -j3' bzImage
A single "-j3" won't do much. It will only build three directories at a
time, and you'll never see much load. But doing it recur
On Tuesday 12 December 2000 11:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
> > Executive summary: SMP 2.4.0 is 2% faster than SMP 2.2.18.
>
> > I ran X and KDE 2.0 during the tests to provide a greater though
> > reproducable load on the tested kernel.
>
> You might want to
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
>
> Executive summary: SMP 2.4.0 is 2% faster than SMP 2.2.18.
Note that kernel compilation really isn't a very relevant benchmark,
because percentage differences in this range can be basically just noise:
things like driver version differences that show
On Monday 11 December 2000 11:46, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Its an interesting demo that 2.4 has some performance problems since 2.2
> is slower than 2.0 although nowdays not much.
Results for SMP 2.2.18 vs SMP 2.4.0-test12 are in.
I repeated my earlier tests on a much faster dual P-III machine.
Execu
Helge Hafting wrote:
>Steven Cole wrote:
>[...]
>>Simple question here, and risking displaying great ignorance:
>>Does it make sense to use make -jN where N is much greater than the
>>number of CPUs?
>
>No, but it makes sense to have N at least one more than the number of
>cpus,
>if you have the m
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
>
> > Building kernels is something we do so frequently and this test
> > is so easy to reproduce is why I performed it in the first
> > place. I think it may be as good a test of real performance as
> > some of
Steven Cole wrote:
[...]
> Simple question here, and risking displaying great ignorance:
> Does it make sense to use make -jN where N is much greater than the
> number of CPUs?
No, but it makes sense to have N at least one more than the number of
cpus,
if you have the memory. This because your p
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
> Building kernels is something we do so frequently and this test
> is so easy to reproduce is why I performed it in the first
> place. I think it may be as good a test of real performance as
> some of the more formal benchmarks. Comments anyone?
Just one
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
> > > I have a SMP (dual P-III 733Mhz) machine at work, but it will be
> > > unavailable for testing for a few more days. I suspect that 2.4.0-test12
> > > will do bet
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
> > I have a SMP (dual P-III 733Mhz) machine at work, but it will be
> > unavailable for testing for a few more days. I suspect that 2.4.0-test12
> > will do better than 2.2.18 with 2 CPUs. I'll know in a few da
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Steven Cole wrote:
> I have a SMP (dual P-III 733Mhz) machine at work, but it will be
> unavailable for testing for a few more days. I suspect that 2.4.0-test12
> will do better than 2.2.18 with 2 CPUs. I'll know in a few days.
>
> Building kernels is something we do so f
Aaron Tiensivu wrote:
>Rerun the 2.4.0 with kgcc to be fair. :)
John Fremlin wrote:
>Two points: (1) gcc 2.95 makes slightly slower code than egcs-1.1
>(according to benchmarks on gcc.gnu.org) so compile 2.4 kernel with
>egcs for a fairer comparison. (2) The new VM was a performance
Ok, several
> How much of that is due to the fact that the 2.4.0 scheduler interrupts
> processes more often than 2.2.x? Is the better interactivity worth the
> slight drop in performance?
What better interactivity ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 04:38:11PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2000, John Fremlin wrote:
>
> > Two points: [snipped]
>
>
> Doing a 'make bzImage' is NOT VM-intensive. Using this as a test
> for the VM doesn't make any sense since it doesn't really excercise
> the VM i
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Doing a 'make bzImage' is NOT VM-intensive. Using this as a test
> > for the VM doesn't make any sense since it doesn't really excercise
> > the VM in any way...
>
> Its an interesting demo that 2.4 has some performance problems since 2.2
> is slower than
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Doing a 'make bzImage' is NOT VM-intensive. Using this as a test
> > for the VM doesn't make any sense since it doesn't really excercise
> > the VM in any way...
>
> Its an interesting demo that 2.4 has some performance problems
> since 2.2 is slower than
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Doing a 'make bzImage' is NOT VM-intensive. Using this as a test
>> for the VM doesn't make any sense since it doesn't really excercise
>> the VM in any way...
> Its an interesting demo that 2.4 has some performance problems since 2.2
> is slower than
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Doing a 'make bzImage' is NOT VM-intensive. Using this as a test
> > for the VM doesn't make any sense since it doesn't really excercise
> > the VM in any way...
>
> Its an interesting demo that 2.4 has some performance problems since 2.2
> is slower than 2.0 although nowda
> Doing a 'make bzImage' is NOT VM-intensive. Using this as a test
> for the VM doesn't make any sense since it doesn't really excercise
> the VM in any way...
Its an interesting demo that 2.4 has some performance problems since 2.2
is slower than 2.0 although nowdays not much.
-
To unsubscribe
On 11 Dec 2000, John Fremlin wrote:
> Two points: [snipped]
Doing a 'make bzImage' is NOT VM-intensive. Using this as a test
for the VM doesn't make any sense since it doesn't really excercise
the VM in any way...
If you want to measure, or even just bitch about, the VM, you should
a
Steven Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> In each case, the task and the tools used are the same. The only
> difference was the kernel used. In both cases, 2.2.18 won by 3%.
> Its comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Granted 3%
> isn't very much, but I would have guessed th
Aaron Tiensivu wrote:
>| 2.2.18-pre26 was compiled with gcc 2.91.66 (kgcc).
>| 2.4.0-test12-pre7 was compiled with gcc 2.95.3.
>
>That's your answer right there.
>GCC 2.95.3 compiles much slower than kgcc.
>
>Rerun the 2.4.0 with kgcc to be fair. :)
Actually, it is fair. There are really two res
| 2.2.18-pre26 was compiled with gcc 2.91.66 (kgcc).
| 2.4.0-test12-pre7 was compiled with gcc 2.95.3.
That's your answer right there.
GCC 2.95.3 compiles much slower than kgcc.
Rerun the 2.4.0 with kgcc to be fair. :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
files were unchanged during the tests.
A make clean was performed before each test.
The test machine was not connected to a network during the tests.
Test machine: single processor P-III (450 Mhz), 192MB, IDE disk (ST317221A).
Conclusion: UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12
using
28 matches
Mail list logo
