[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252581670.18659.11.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:21:10 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:09 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:28 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > > No difference. Then I tried switching NO_NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS on, and then
> > > I get:
> > >
> > > Performance counter stats for 'xmodmap .xmodmap-carl':
> > >
> > > 9.009137 task-clock-msecs # 0.447 CPUs
> > > 18 context-switches # 0.002 M/sec
> > > 1 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec
> > > 315 page-faults # 0.035 M/sec
> > > <not counted> cycles
> > > <not counted> instructions
> > > <not counted> cache-references
> > > <not counted> cache-misses
> > >
> > > 0.020167093 seconds time elapsed
> > >
> > > Woot!
> >
> > Something is very seriously hosed on that box... clock?
>
> model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2400 @ 1.83GHz
>
> Throttles down to 1.00GHz when idle.
>
> > Can you turn it back on, and do..
>
> I guess you mean turn NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS back on, correct?
>
> > while sleep .1; do cat /proc/sched_debug >> foo; done
> > ..on one core, and (quickly;) xmodmap .xmodmap-carl, then send me a few
> > seconds worth (gzipped up) to eyeball?
>
> Attached.
xmodmap doesn't seem to be running in this sample.
-Mike
--
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