On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 09:34:14PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

Run 3 iterations, and measures three metrics (messaging/pipe/seccomp)
and results in seconds. Less is better.

  +---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |Without change       |   run1 |   run2 |   run3 |    avg |
  +---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |messaging (sec)      |  4.546 |  4.508 |  4.591 |  4.548 |
  |pipe (sec)           | 24.258 | 24.224 | 24.017 | 24.166 |
  |seccomp-notify (sec) | 48.393 | 48.457 | 48.232 | 48.361 |
  +---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

  +---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |With change          |   run1 |   run2 |   run3 |    avg |   diff |
  +---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |messaging (sec)      |  4.493 |  4.523 |  4.556 |  4.524 | +0.52% |
  |pipe (sec)           | 23.159 | 23.702 | 28.649 | 25.170 | -4.15% |

If you check the result, this result variance is abnormal, it means
your OS is noiser.

BTW: if you remove the abnormal run3 result, you'll find that the
benchmark is improved by ~3.5% on CA73:
(23.159 + 23.702) / 2 = 23.43
(24.258 + 24.224) / 2 = 24.24
(24.24 - 23.43)*100 / 23.43 = ~3.5

TBH, I don't think we should subjectively select data.  But I agree a
clean test env is important to avoid noise, and I also agree that the
current results already show positive signals.

Thanks,
Leo