[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070418121421.GB878@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:14:21 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steve Fox <drfickle@...ibm.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:33:56PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 April 2007 18:55, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Again, for comparison 2.6.21-rc7 mainline:
> >
> > 508.87user 32.47system 2:17.82elapsed 392%CPU
> > 509.05user 32.25system 2:17.84elapsed 392%CPU
> > 508.75user 32.26system 2:17.83elapsed 392%CPU
> > 508.63user 32.17system 2:17.88elapsed 392%CPU
> > 509.01user 32.26system 2:17.90elapsed 392%CPU
> > 509.08user 32.20system 2:17.95elapsed 392%CPU
> >
> > So looking at elapsed time, a granularity of 100ms is just behind the
> > mainline score. However it is using slightly less user time and
> > slightly more idle time, which indicates that balancing might have got
> > a bit less aggressive.
> >
> > But anyway, it conclusively shows the efficiency impact of such tiny
> > timeslices.
>
> See test.kernel.org for how (the now defunct) SD was performing on kernbench.
> It had low latency _and_ equivalent throughput to mainline. Set the standard
> appropriately on both counts please.
I can give it a run. Got an updated patch against -rc7?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists