sena seneviratne wrote:
In fact my question in the post was about performance testing after
the changes being done.
--2) Now about the tests
--As I have documented all this yet need to perform some standard
tests for the sake of completion.
--What tests should I carry out to prove that the system is still intact?
--Please tell me whether the below is correct?
--(a) As suggested by the http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/ the
lmbench and re-aim-7 test packages can be used to test the
----performance of the kernel before making changes and after. (Not
done as yet)
To measure impact of patches for a kernel tree, Contest (available from
http://freshmeat.net/projects/contest/)
is a good start. lmbench is also useful.
--(-b) Further tests have been carried out to check the response time
of short tasks before making changes and after making --changes. The
results indicated that there was no difference in the response time
after introducing the changes to the kernel (done)
---(c) Thereafter the tests have been carried out to check the runtime
of long tasks before and after making changes. The results of the
tests revealed that there is no change in reported runtime in both
occasions.(done)
Why is there a distinction between short and long running tasks when
overall performance overhead
of the kernel needs to be verified ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
