Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?
From: Dan Kegel (dank_at_kegel.com)
Date: 08/31/03
- Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "[bk patches] 2.4.x net driver updates"
- In reply to: Larry McVoy: "Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?"
- Next in thread: Daniel Jacobowitz: "Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:28:58 -0700 To: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:21:37AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
>>(There seems to be large variations in successive runs of LMBench
>>when I try it, so it may take me a bit of work to get repeatable
>>results.)
>
>
> Other than the context switch part or anything based on it, that shouldn't
> be true, it should be very stable.
>
> I'm pretty convinced that the variations are due to different pages being
> allocated and the result cache contention makes things bounce.
Or an idiot running the benchmark. We really do have to rule that out first.
- Dan
-- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045 - 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/
- Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "[bk patches] 2.4.x net driver updates"
- In reply to: Larry McVoy: "Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?"
- Next in thread: Daniel Jacobowitz: "Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
