[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090910113516.GP18599@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:35:16 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
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, Sep 10 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:24 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > xmodmap doesn't seem to be running in this sample.
> >
> > That's weird, it was definitely running. I did:
> >
> > sleep 1; xmodmap .xmodmap-carl
> >
> > in one xterm, and then switched to the other and ran the sched_debug
> > dump. I have to do it this way, as X will not move focus once xmodmap
> > starts running. It could be that xmodmap is mostly idle, and the real
> > work is done by Xorg and/or xfwm4 (my window manager).
>
> Hm. Ok, I'll crawl over it, see if anything falls out.
That seems to be confirmed with the low context switch rate of the perf
stat of xmodmap. If I run perf stat -a to get a system wide collection
for xmodmap, I get:
Performance counter stats for 'xmodmap .xmodmap-carl':
20112.060925 task-clock-msecs # 1.998 CPUs
629360 context-switches # 0.031 M/sec
8 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec
13489 page-faults # 0.001 M/sec
<not counted> cycles
<not counted> instructions
<not counted> cache-references
<not counted> cache-misses
10.067532449 seconds time elapsed
And again, system is idle while this is happening. Can't rule out that
this is some kind of user space bug of course.
--
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