On Thursday 26 April 2007 22:07, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Michael Gerdau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > find below a test comparing
> > 2.6.21-rc7 (mainline)
> > 2.6.21-rc7-sd046
> > 2.6.21-rc7-cfs-v6-rc2(*) (X @ nice 0)
> > 2.6.21-rc7-cfs-v6-rc2(*) (X @ nice -10)
> > running on a dualcore x86_64.
>
> thanks for the testing!
Very interesting indeed but fairly complicated as well.
> as a summary: i think your numbers demonstrate it nicely that the
> shorter 'timeslice length' that both CFS and SD utilizes does not have a
> measurable negative impact on your workload. To measure the total impact
> of 'timeslicing' you might want to try the exact same workload with a
> much higher 'timeslice length' of say 400 msecs, via:
>
> echo 400000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns # on CFS
> echo 400 > /proc/sys/kernel/rr_interval # on SD
I thought that the effective "timeslice" on CFS was double the
sched_granularity_ns so wouldn't this make the effective timeslice double
that of what you're setting SD to? Anyway the difference between 400 and
800ms timeslices is unlikely to be significant so I don't mind.
--
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
