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

[Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, 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.
>
>
> The compile load is not a real compile load; it is an extreme exaggeration of 
> what happens during a compile and this is done to increase the sensitivity of 
> this test. It is _not_ worth trying to get a perfect score in this.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Well of course it helps X - but then any X load totally fscks up audio on 
> mainline and staircase which is why it's recommended not to renice it.

Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't 
destroy Audio and Video?  The results that I just posted for 
spa_no_frills with X reniced to -10 suggest that the other schedulers 
could cope with something closer to zero.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/