[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1206164608.3659.11.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:43:28 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Scalability requirements for sysv ipc
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 17:08 +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I could give it a spin -- though I would need to be pointed to the
> > patch and the test.
> >
> >
> I'd just compare a recent kernel with something older, pre Fri Oct 19
> 11:53:44 2007
>
> Then download ctxbench, run one instance on each core, bound with taskset.
> http://www.tmr.com/%7Epublic/source/
> (I don't juse ctxbench myself, if it doesn't work then I could post my
> own app. It would be i386 only with RDTSCs inside)
(test gizmos are always welcome)
Results for Q6600 box don't look particularly wonderful.
taskset -c 3 ./ctx -s
2.6.24.3
3766962 itterations in 9.999845 seconds = 376734/sec
2.6.22.18-cfs-v24.1
4375920 itterations in 10.006199 seconds = 437330/sec
for i in 0 1 2 3; do taskset -c $i ./ctx -s& done
2.6.22.18-cfs-v24.1
4355784 itterations in 10.005670 seconds = 435361/sec
4396033 itterations in 10.005686 seconds = 439384/sec
4390027 itterations in 10.006511 seconds = 438739/sec
4383906 itterations in 10.006834 seconds = 438128/sec
2.6.24.3
1269937 itterations in 9.999757 seconds = 127006/sec
1266723 itterations in 9.999663 seconds = 126685/sec
1267293 itterations in 9.999348 seconds = 126742/sec
1265793 itterations in 9.999766 seconds = 126592/sec
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists