[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090907173846.GB18599@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 19:38:46 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > Scheduler Runtime Max lat Avg lat Std dev
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > CFS 100 951 462 267
> > > CFS-x2 100 983 484 308
> > > BFS
> > > BFS-x2
> >
> > Those numbers are buggy, btw, it's not nearly as bad. But
> > responsiveness under compile load IS bad though, the test app just
> > didn't quantify it correctly. I'll see if I can get it working
> > properly.
>
> What's the default latency target on your box:
>
> cat /proc/sys/kernel/sched_latency_ns
>
> ?
It's off right now, but it is set to whatever is the default. I don't
touch it.
> And yes, it would be wonderful to get a test-app from you that would
> express the kind of pain you are seeing during compile jobs.
I was hoping this one would, but it's not showing anything. I even added
support for doing the ping and wakeup over a socket, to see if the pipe
test was doing well because of the sync wakeup we do there. The net
latency is a little worse, but still good. So no luck in making that app
so far.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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