Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > I am very interested to hear feedback and benchmarks of this patch. So, here are some :) I've applied your patch to 6-stable with only minor difficulties. Here are the results of unixbench's context1 benchmark for "normal" (unpatched) kernel with acpi-fast, tsc and i8254 timecounter hardware and then with a patched kernel (timecounter hardware didn't make a noticable difference here): x ct1-6-stable-tsc + ct1-6-stable-tscphk * ct1-6-stable-acpifast % ct1-6-stable-i8254 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |% * | |% * | |% * x +| |% * xx ++| |% * xx ++| |A A A| |A| +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ N Min Max Median Avg Stddev x 5 2331645 2353665 2342346 2342657.8 9825.4048 + 5 2585053 2605310 2602141 2596283.8 10010.176 Difference at 95.0% confidence 253626 +/- 14465.2 10.8264% +/- 0.617468% (Student's t, pooled s = 9918.22) * 5 1719124 1727693 1725060 1724709.8 3464.6507 Difference at 95.0% confidence -617948 +/- 10744.2 -26.3781% +/- 0.458633% (Student's t, pooled s = 7366.9) % 5 582065 584233 582435 582720 883.62832 Difference at 95.0% confidence -1.75994e+06 +/- 10173.6 -75.1257% +/- 0.434275% (Student's t, pooled s = 6975.65) Also, I did complete runs of unixbench and here are the cumulative indexes: unpatched-acpi-fast: 326.7 unpatched-tsc: 336.3 patched+tsc: 349.1 By this benchmark, it seems that overall performance could improve by ~7% by using your patch vs the default acpi-fast timecounter on unpatched kernel. Of course, this result probably won't hold in real life :) All results are available at: http://ivoras.sharanet.org/stuff/timebench.tgzReceived on Wed Nov 30 2005 - 01:13:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:48 UTC