Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 15:52:42 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Joerg Micheel <joerg@krdl.org.sg>, John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Context switch time Message-ID: <19980504155242.P4777@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19980504140442.52763@krdl.org.sg>; from Joerg Micheel on Mon, May 04, 1998 at 02:04:42PM %2B0800 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980425041329.28708A-100000@fledge.watson.org> <19980425034313.55993@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> <19980504143736.L4777@freebie.lemis.com> <19980503222303.36966@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> <19980504140442.52763@krdl.org.sg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 4 May 1998 at 14:04:42 +0800, Joerg Micheel wrote: > On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 10:23:03PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: >> Greg Lehey scribbled this message on May 4: >>> On Sat, 25 April 1998 at 3:43:13 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: >>> >>> Strange. This is what I get from a program that repeatedly calls >>> getpid() on my K6/233: >>> >>> procs memory page faults cpu >>> r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr w0 in sy cs us sy id > > P5/200: > > procs memory page disks faults cpu > r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr s0 s1 in sy cs us sy id > 2 0 03774864 4500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 726164 25 31 69 0 > 1 0 03776128 4472 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 362 698099 230 36 64 0 > (etc) > > These numbers might not that much depend on processor type/speed. What > about memory/cache speed ? Chipset ? Comments ? I think they have quite a strong relationship with processor power. Here's a 486/66: 1 0 0 10344 3720 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 116903 16 23 77 0 1 0 0 10016 3720 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 116357 18 23 77 0 A P5/75 with no L2 cache: 1 0 0 8752 6172 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 180921 16 17 83 0 1 0 0 8752 6172 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 181869 16 18 82 0 A P5/133: 1 0 0 12584 9012 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 482656 19 22 78 0 1 0 0 13076 9012 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 264 483160 23 27 73 0 In particular, the P5/133 and your P5/200 seem to handle about 3500 syscalls/MHz. The P5/75 is presumably slower because of the missing cache, and I've noticed before that the K6 isn't as much faster at this sort of thing as I would expect--suggestions for the reasons are welcome. One could be that it's an Inten TX board with 96 MB, of which only 64 MB are cached, but it seems to match up with John-Mark's observations. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980504155242.P4777>