Re: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:

Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:


The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.

Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with
default max_ia_bonus and max_tpt_bonus manages to deliver under 100ms
max latency.  As expected with interactivity bonus disabled it performs
horribly.

I'd like to see some results with X reniced to -10.  Despite what the
2.6 release notes say, this still seems to make a difference.

Even spa_no_frills, which does absolutely nothing to help interactive (or other special interest) tasks, can cope in these circumstances as illustrated by these results from my (relatively old) SMP machine show:

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of X nice -10 in the presence of simulated ---
Load	Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None	   0.01 +/- 0.129          2		 100	       99.3
Video	  0.007 +/- 0.0818         1		 100	       99.3
Burn	  0.006 +/- 0.0817         1		 100	       99.3
Write	  0.033 +/- 0.271          3		99.3	         98
Read	  0.046 +/- 0.337          3		98.4	         97
Compile	  0.023 +/- 0.208          2		99.3	       98.3
Memload	  0.043 +/- 0.31           3		98.1	         97

This machine isn't directly comparable with Michal's so for comparison here are the results from "out of the box" Zaphod on the same machine:

--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of X in the presence of simulated ---
Load	Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  % Deadlines Met
None	   0.02 +/- 0.2            2		99.3	       98.7
Video	  0.007 +/- 0.0818         1		 100	       99.3
Burn	  0.023 +/- 0.208          2		99.3	       98.3
Write	  0.147 +/- 0.949         12		94.7	       93.2
Read	  0.033 +/- 0.258          2		98.7	       97.7
Compile	   2.94 +/- 10.7         105		76.8	       71.6
Memload	  0.017 +/- 0.153          2		 100	       98.7

As you can see there's evidence in these numbers the file writes are implicated in the bad numbers for the Compile load (which is a mixture of Burn, Read, Write and (I think) Memload). So testing with different I/O schedulers might be interesting.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   [email protected]

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
-
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]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]
  Powered by Linux