Re: [BENCHMARK] 100Hz v 1000Hz with contest

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:

> I've attempted to answer the question does 1000Hz hurt responsiveness in 2.5
> as much as I've found in 2.4; since subjectively the difference wasn't there
> in 2.5. Using the same config with preempt enabled here are results from
> 2.5.70-mm3 set at default 1000Hz and at 100Hz (mm31):

Thanks for carrying out these =)

> ctar_load:
> Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
> 2.5.70-mm3          3   114     70.2    1.0     5.3     1.44
> 2.5.70-mm31         3   105     73.3    0.7     3.8     1.36

> dbench_load:
> Kernel         [runs]   Time    CPU%    Loads   LCPU%   Ratio
> 2.5.70-mm3          4   313     24.3    5.0     56.9    3.96
> 2.5.70-mm31         4   297     24.9    4.5     52.5    3.86
>
> At first glance everything looks faster at 100Hz. However it is well known
> that it will take slightly longer even with no load at 1000Hz. Taking that
> into consideration and looking more at the final ratios than the absolute
> numbers it is apparent that the difference is statistically insignificant,
> except on ctar_load.

What about dbench_load?
 
> Previously I had benchmark results on 1000Hz which showed preempt improved the
> results in a few of the loads. For my next experiment I will compare 100Hz
> with preempt to 100Hz without.

Cheers,
	Zwane
-- 
function.linuxpower.ca