[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110614065807.GA19111@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:58:07 +0800
From: Hu Tao <hutao@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.co>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] CFS Bandwidth Control V6
Hi,
I've run several tests including hackbench, unixbench, massive-intr
and kernel building. CPU is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3430 @ 2.40GHz,
4 cores, and 4G memory.
Most of the time the results differ few, but there are problems:
1. unixbench: execl throughout has about 5% drop.
2. unixbench: process creation has about 5% drop.
3. massive-intr: when running 200 processes for 5mins, the number
of loops each process runs differ more than before cfs-bandwidth-v6.
The results are attached.
View attachment "massive-intr-200-300-without-patch.txt" of type "text/plain" (2784 bytes)
View attachment "massive-intr-200-300-with-patch.txt" of type "text/plain" (3200 bytes)
View attachment "massive-intr-200-60-without-patch.txt" of type "text/plain" (2608 bytes)
View attachment "massive-intr-200-60-with-patch.txt" of type "text/plain" (3120 bytes)
Download attachment "massive-intr.png" of type "image/png" (79913 bytes)
View attachment "unixbench-cfs-bandwidth-v6" of type "text/plain" (5624 bytes)
View attachment "unixbench-without-cfs-bandwidth-v6" of type "text/plain" (5638 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists