Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:40:34PM -0500, Shailabh Nagar wrote:
This is the next iteration of the delay accounting patches
last posted at
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0602.3/0893.html
Do you have any benchmark numbers with this patch applied and with it
not applied?
None yet. Wanted to iron out the collection/utility aspects a bit before
going into
the performance impact.
But this seems as good a time as any to collect some stats
using the usual suspects lmbench, kernbench, hackbench etc.
Last I heard it was a measurable decrease for some
"important" benchmark results...
Might have been from an older iteration where schedstats was fully enabled.
But no point speculating....will run with this set of patches and see
what shakes out.
One point about the overhead is that it depends on the frequency with
which data is
collected. So a proper test would probably be a comparison of a
non-patched kernel
with
a) patches applied but delay accounting not turned on at boot i.e. cost
of the checks
b) delay accounting turned on but not being read
c) delay accounting turned on and data read for all tasks at some
"reasonable" rate
Will that be good ? Other suggestions welcome.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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]
