[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090910110348.GK18599@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:03:48 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
Cc: Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > It probably just means that latt isn't a good measure of the problem.
> > Which isn't really too much of a surprise.
>
> And that's a real shame because this was one of the first real good attempts
> I've seen to actually measure the difference, and I thank you for your
> efforts Jens. I believe the reason it's limited is because all you're
> measuring is time from wakeup and the test app isn't actually doing any work.
> The issue is more than just waking up as fast as possible, it's then doing
> some meaningful amount of work within a reasonable time frame as well. What
> the "meaningful amount of work" and "reasonable time frame" are, remains a
> mystery, but I guess could be added on to this testing app.
Here's a quickie addition that adds some work to the threads. The
latency measure is now 'when did I wake up and complete my work'. The
default work is filling a buffer with pseudo random data and then
compressing it with zlib. Default is 64kb of data, can be adjusted with
-x. -x0 turns off work processing.
--
Jens Axboe
View attachment "latt.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (11246 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists