[...]
> > Hello Andrea,
> >
> > I did my usual compile testings (untar kernel archive, apply patches,
> > make -j<value> ...
> >
> > Here are some results (Wall time + Percent cpu) for each of the consecutive five runs:
> >
> > 13-pre5aa1 18-pre2aa2 18-pre3 18-pre3s 18-pre3sp
> > j100: 6:59.79 78% 7:07.62 76% * 6:39.55 81% 6:24.79 83%
> > j100: 7:03.39 77% 8:10.04 66% * 8:07.13 66% 6:21.23 83%
> > j100: 6:40.40 81% 7:43.15 70% * 6:37.46 81% 6:03.68 87%
> > j100: 7:45.12 70% 7:11.59 75% * 7:14.46 74% 6:06.98 87%
> > j100: 6:56.71 79% 7:36.12 71% * 6:26.59 83% 6:11.30 86%
> >
> > j75: 6:22.33 85% 6:42.50 81% 6:48.83 80% 6:01.61 89% 5:42.66 93%
> > j75: 6:41.47 81% 7:19.79 74% 6:49.43 79% 5:59.82 89% 6:00.83 88%
> > j75: 6:10.32 88% 6:44.98 80% 7:01.01 77% 6:02.99 88% 5:48.00 91%
> > j75: 6:28.55 84% 6:44.21 80% 9:33.78 57% 6:19.83 85% 5:49.07 91%
> > j75: 6:17.15 86% 6:46.58 80% 7:24.52 73% 6:23.50 84% 5:58.06 88%
> >
> > * build incomplete (OOM killer killed several cc1 ... )
> >
> > So far 2.4.13-pre5aa1 had been the king of the block in compile times.
> > But this has changed. Now the (by far) fastest kernel is 2.4.18-pre
> > + Ingos scheduler patch (s) + preemptive patch (p). I did not test
> > preemptive patch alone so far since I don't know if the one I have
> > applies cleanly against -pre3 without Ingos patch. I used the
> > following patches:
> >
> > s: sched-O1-2.4.17-H6.patch
> > p: preempt-kernel-rml-2.4.18-pre3-ingo-1.patch
> >
> > I hope this info is useful to someone.
>
> the improvement of "sp" compared to "s" is quite visible, not sure how
> can a little different time spent in kernel make such a difference on
> the final numbers, also given compilation is mostly an userspace task, I
> assume you were swapping out or running out of cache at the very least,
> right?
The system is *heavily* swapping. Plain 2.4.18-pre3 can not even finish
the jobs because it runs out of memory. That's why I used j75 or j100
initially. Otherwise there was not even a difference between the 2.4.10+
vm and the 2.4.9-ac+ vm. All I want to test with this "benchmark" is how
well the system reacts when I throw *lots* of compilation jobs at it ...
> btw, I'd be curious if you could repeat the same test with -j1 or -j2?
> (actually real world)
Using just -j1 or -j2 will probably be no difference (I will test it anyway
and post the results).
> Still the other numbers remains interesting for a trashing machine, but
> a few percent difference with a trashing box isn't a big difference, vm
> changes can infulence those numbers more than any preempt or scheduler
> number (of course if my guess that you're swapping out is really right :).
> I guess "p" helps because we simply miss some schedule point in some vm
> routine. Hints?
But what *I* like most about the preemptive results are that the results
for all runs do not vary that much. Looking at plain 2.4.18-pre3 there
is a huge difference in runtime between the fastest and the longest run.
Regards,
Jogi
--Well, yeah ... I suppose there's no point in getting greedy, is there?
<< Calvin & Hobbes >> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/