[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AB53BCC.503@openwrt.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:15:08 +0200
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: 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>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org> wrote:
>> I did some tests with BFS v230 vs CFS on Linux 2.6.30 on a different
>> MIPS device (Atheros AR2317) with 180 MHz and 16 MB RAM. When running
>> iperf tests, I consistently get the following results when running the
>> transfer from the device to my laptop:
>>
>> CFS: [ 5] 0.0-60.0 sec 107 MBytes 15.0 Mbits/sec
>> BFS: [ 5] 0.0-60.0 sec 119 MBytes 16.6 Mbits/sec
>>
>> The transfer speed from my laptop to the device are the same with BFS
>> and CFS. I repeated the tests a few times just to be sure, and I will
>> check vmstat later.
>
> Which exact mainline kernel have you tried? For anything performance
> related running latest upstream -git (currently at 202c467) would be
> recommended.
I used the OpenWrt-patched 2.6.30. Support for the hardware that I
tested with hasn't been merged upstream yet. Do you think that the
scheduler related changes after 2.6.30 are relevant for non-SMP
performance as well? If so, I'll work on a test with latest upstream
-git with the necessary patches when I have time for it.
- Felix
--
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