[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46536D52.9010707@tmr.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:23:14 -0400
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Linux Kernel mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Scheduling tests on IPC methods, fc6, sd0.48, cfs12
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> wrote:
>
>> I have posted the results of my initial testing, measuring IPC rates
>> using various schedulers under no load, limited nice load, and heavy
>> load at nice 0.
>>
>> http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/ctxbench_testing.html
>
> nice! For this to become really representative though i'd like to ask
> for a real workload function to be used after the task gets the
> lock/message. The reason is that there is an inherent balancing conflict
> in this area: should the scheduler 'spread' tasks to other CPUs or not?
> In general, for all workloads that matter, the answer is almost always:
> 'yes, it should'.
>
Added to the short to-do list. Note that this was originally simply a
check to see which IPC works best (or at all) in an o/s. It has been
useful for some other things, and an option for work will be forthcoming.
> But in your ctxbench results the work a task performs after doing IPC is
> not reflected (the benchmark goes about to do the next IPC - hence
> penalizing scheduling strategies that move tasks to other CPUs) - hence
> the bonus of a scheduler properly spreading out tasks is not measured
> fairly. A real-life IPC workload is rarely just about messaging around
> (a single task could do that itself) - some real workload function is
> used. You can see this effect yourself: do a "taskset -p 01 $$" before
> running ctxbench and you'll see the numbers improve significantly on all
> of the schedulers.
>
> As a solution i'd suggest to add a workload function with a 100 or 200
> usecs (or larger) cost (as a fixed-length loop or something like that)
> so that the 'spreading' effect/benefit gets measured fairly too.
>
Can do.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
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