[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AA6123F.7020704@arcor.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:13:51 +0300
From: Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Pekka Pietikainen <pp@...oulu.fi>, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
On 09/08/2009 11:04 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Pekka Pietikainen<pp@...oulu.fi> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:57:01PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>> Could you profile it please? Also, what's the context-switch rate?
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, the broadcom mips architecture does not have
>>>> profiling support. It does only have some proprietary profiling
>>>> registers that nobody wrote kernel support for, yet.
>>> Well, what does 'vmstat 1' show - how many context switches are
>>> there per second on the iperf server? In theory if it's a truly
>>> saturated box, there shouldnt be many - just a single iperf task
>>
>> Yay, finally something that's measurable in this thread \o/
>
> My initial posting in this thread contains 6 separate types of
> measurements, rather extensive ones. Out of those, 4 measurements
> were latency oriented, two were throughput oriented. Plenty of data,
> plenty of results, and very good reproducability.
None of which involve latency-prone GUI applications running on cheap
commodity hardware though. I listed examples where mainline seems to
behave sub-optimal and ways to reproduce them but this doesn't seem to
be an area of interest.
--
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