Con Kolivas wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>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):
>
>no_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3 1 79 94.9 0.0 0.0 1.00
>2.5.70-mm31 1 77 94.8 0.0 0.0 1.00
>cacherun:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3 1 76 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.96
>2.5.70-mm31 1 74 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.96
>process_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3 2 108 68.5 64.5 28.7 1.37
>2.5.70-mm31 2 107 69.2 67.0 29.0 1.39
>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
>xtar_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3 3 123 62.6 2.3 5.7 1.56
>2.5.70-mm31 3 122 61.5 2.0 4.9 1.58
>io_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3 4 116 66.4 40.6 18.8 1.47
>2.5.70-mm31 4 114 65.8 41.0 19.3 1.48
>io_other:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3 2 116 66.4 50.0 22.2 1.47
>2.5.70-mm31 2 112 67.9 46.1 21.4 1.45
>read_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3 2 104 75.0 8.2 5.8 1.32
>2.5.70-mm31 2 100 76.0 7.5 7.0 1.30
>list_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3 2 95 80.0 0.0 7.4 1.20
>2.5.70-mm31 2 92 82.6 0.0 5.4 1.19
>mem_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.70-mm3 2 98 80.6 53.0 2.0 1.24
>2.5.70-mm31 2 95 81.1 53.0 2.1 1.23
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Con
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQE+3BRIF6dfvkL3i1gRAnEbAKCpaj/kajzKV3qVrWGRIhOh+Q8O8gCfZp6c
>M3Iq1D/41t+4SB2jtNYQc48=
>=NMfC
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>-
>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/
>
>
>
-
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/