| |||||||||||||
KS2010: Performance regressionsKS2010: Performance regressionsPosted Nov 2, 2010 13:54 UTC (Tue) by jbh (subscriber, #494)In reply to: KS2010: Performance regressions by Cyberax Parent article: KS2010: Performance regressions
I had a brief look at the kernel tracker, and it does look more useful than I remembered. The standard tests there (dbench and so on), and although it looks like a lot of the tests are a bit pointless (basic single-thread cpu-heavy workload), they can probably be disabled.
But the arbitrary mix of operations-per-seconds and seconds-to-complete is very annoying, it means I have to read the fine print on every graph to parse it. Gah!
(Log in to post comments)
KS2010: Performance regressions Posted Nov 2, 2010 15:15 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
"I had a brief look at the kernel tracker, and it does look more useful than I remembered. The standard tests there (dbench and so on), and although it looks like a lot of the tests are a bit pointless (basic single-thread cpu-heavy workload), they can probably be disabled."
Single-threaded benchmarks are not pointless. I had regressions in single-thread workloads caused by 'too clever' locking which had higher overhead than good old lock_kernel.
Anyway, it's certainly possible to disable uninteresting benchmarks in Phoromatic.
KS2010: Performance regressions Posted Nov 2, 2010 21:29 UTC (Tue) by jbh (subscriber, #494) [Link]
If you got burned by locking changes, I suspect it wasn't a cpu-bound workload to begin with. But if you find them useful, good for you!
|
|||||||||||||