Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 11:25:31 +0200 (SAT) From: rv@groa.uct.ac.za (Russell Vincent) To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Intel XXpress - some SMP benchmarks Message-ID: <m0v02ax-0004vqC@groa.uct.ac.za>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
'lmbench 1.0' results for:
Intel XXpress (dual P5-133), PCI/EISA
Each processor has 1MB L2 write-back cache
92MB DRAM (kernel configured for 64MB)
(ahc0:0:0): "CDC 94191-15 0136" type 0 fixed SCSI 1
de0 <Digital DC21041 Ethernet> rev 17 int a irq 9 on pci0:12
de0: DC21041 [10Mb/s] pass 1.1
Note: I have only performed these benchmarks for interest comparison
between the various tests below. Comparing them to another machine
and/or another OS will make little/no sense. i.e: Don't bother.
Various tests:
1) UP-1P : FreeBSD 2.2-current as of Fri, 6 Sep 1996
2) SMP-1P : FreeBSD 2.2-smp as of Fri, 6 Sep 1996 (after -current merge and
with extra code added by Steve Passe <smp@csn.net>)
o Single processor running
3) SMP-2P-1: FreeBSD 2.2-smp as of Fri, 6 Sep 1996 (after -current merge and
with extra code added by Steve Passe <smp@csn.net>)
o Dual processor running
4) SMP-2P-2: FreeBSD 2.2-smp as of Fri, 6 Sep 1996 (after -current merge and
with extra code added by Steve Passe <smp@csn.net>), but
less debug code than (3) - this appears to indicate timing
bugs.
o Dual processor running
Comments:
o The SMP kernel on the XXpress would not run without the extra code
and without the debug statements. Removing the debug statements
causes the machine to appear to 'freeze' when the second
processor is started - I suspect it is still running, but not
getting around to servicing interrupts properly.
o By 'less debug code' in (4), I mean that a statement like:
pushal; pushl _mp_lock; call _mp1; addl $4, %esp; popal
gets changed to:
pushal; popal
in get_mplock() and rel_mplock(). Hence the possible timing
bugs.
o The hard drive is slow - that was all I had available, but that
isn't what is being tested. it did the job well enough.
o Option (3), although not that good in the benchmarks, certainly
appears faster in interactive use. That could just be my imagination,
though. :-)
L M B E N C H 1 . 0 S U M M A R Y
------------------------------------
Processor, Processes - times in microseconds
--------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz Null Null Simple /bin/sh Mmap 2-proc 8-proc
Syscall Process Process Process lat ctxsw ctxsw
--------- ------------- ---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---- ------ ------
SMP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 8 1.6K 8.8K 15K 78 29 31
SMP-2P-1 FreeBSD 2.2-C 134 36 2.6K 13.0K 20K 135 14 45
SMP-2P-2 FreeBSD 2.2-C 132 516 20.5K 184.3K 298K 1163 17 41
UP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 5 1.5K 7.9K 13K 71 15 17
*Local* Communication latencies in microseconds
-----------------------------------------------
Host OS Pipe UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/
UDP TCP
--------- ------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
SMP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 81 197 318 232 397
SMP-2P-1 FreeBSD 2.2-C 172 309 503 366 617
SMP-2P-2 FreeBSD 2.2-C 212 285 520 1743 758
UP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 49 160 280 195 356
*Local* Communication bandwidths in megabytes/second
----------------------------------------------------
Host OS Pipe TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem
reread reread (libc) (hand) read write
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- -----
SMP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 56 17.9 34.8 48.2 26 24 58 39
SMP-2P-1 FreeBSD 2.2-C 28 12.7 34.4 31.2 16 15 39 24
SMP-2P-2 FreeBSD 2.2-C 17 13.9 32.3 30.4 15 15 38 24
UP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 58 18.2 35.6 49.3 26 24 58 39
Memory latencies in nanoseconds
(WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs)
--------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem TLB Guesses
--------- ------------- --- ---- ---- -------- --- -------
SMP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 7 79 323 401
SMP-2P-1 FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 7 56 528 521
SMP-2P-2 FreeBSD 2.2-C 132 7 62 523 568
UP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 7 53 322 392
L M B E N C H 1 . 0 S U M M A R Y
------------------------------------
Comparison to best of the breed
-------------------------------
(Best numbers are starred, i.e., *123)
Processor, Processes - factor slower than the best
--------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz Null Null Simple /bin/sh Mmap 2-proc 8-proc
Syscall Process Process Process lat ctxsw ctxsw
--------- ------------- ---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---- ------ ------
SMP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.1 1.8
SMP-2P-1 FreeBSD 2.2-C 134 7.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.9 *14 2.6
SMP-2P-2 FreeBSD 2.2-C 132 103 14 23 22 16 1.2 2.4
UP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 *5 *1.4K *7.7K *13.1K *71 1.1 *17
*Local* Communication latencies - factor slower than the best
-------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Pipe UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/
UDP TCP
--------- ------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
SMP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1
SMP-2P-1 FreeBSD 2.2-C 3.5 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.7
SMP-2P-2 FreeBSD 2.2-C 4.3 1.8 1.9 8.9 2.1
UP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C *49 *160 *280 *195 *356
*Local* Communication bandwidths - percentage of the best
---------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Pipe TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem
reread reread (libc) (hand) read write
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- -----
SMP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 97% 98% 97% 97% 99% *24 99% 99%
SMP-2P-1 FreeBSD 2.2-C 47% 69% 96% 63% 59% 61% 67% 62%
SMP-2P-2 FreeBSD 2.2-C 29% 76% 90% 61% 58% 61% 65% 62%
UP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C *57 *18 *35 *49 *26 99% *57 *38
Memory latencies in nanoseconds - factor slower than the best
(WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem TLB Guesses
--------- ------------- --- ---- ---- -------- --- -------
SMP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 *7 1.5 1.0 1.0
SMP-2P-1 FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 *7 1.1 1.6 1.3
SMP-2P-2 FreeBSD 2.2-C 132 *7 1.2 1.6 1.4
UP-1P FreeBSD 2.2-C 133 *7 *53 *322 *392
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0v02ax-0004vqC>