Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

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

 



On Wednesday 18 April 2007 18:55, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:59:00AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 2.6.21-rc7-cfs-v2
> > > 534.80user 30.92system 2:23.64elapsed 393%CPU
> > > 534.75user 31.01system 2:23.70elapsed 393%CPU
> > > 534.66user 31.07system 2:23.76elapsed 393%CPU
> > > 534.56user 30.91system 2:23.76elapsed 393%CPU
> > > 534.66user 31.07system 2:23.67elapsed 393%CPU
> > > 535.43user 30.62system 2:23.72elapsed 393%CPU
> >
> > Thanks for testing this! Could you please try this also with:
> >
> >    echo 100000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity
>
> 507.68user 31.87system 2:18.05elapsed 390%CPU
> 507.99user 31.93system 2:18.09elapsed 390%CPU
> 507.46user 31.78system 2:18.03elapsed 390%CPU
> 507.68user 31.93system 2:18.11elapsed 390%CPU
> 507.63user 31.98system 2:18.01elapsed 390%CPU
> 507.83user 31.94system 2:18.28elapsed 390%CPU
>
> > could you maybe even try a more extreme setting of:
> >
> >    echo 500000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity
>
> 504.87user 32.13system 2:18.03elapsed 389%CPU
> 505.94user 32.29system 2:17.87elapsed 390%CPU
> 506.10user 31.90system 2:17.96elapsed 389%CPU
> 505.02user 32.02system 2:17.96elapsed 389%CPU
> 506.69user 31.96system 2:17.82elapsed 390%CPU
> 505.70user 31.84system 2:17.90elapsed 389%CPU
>
>
> Again, for comparison 2.6.21-rc7 mainline:
>
> 508.87user 32.47system 2:17.82elapsed 392%CPU
> 509.05user 32.25system 2:17.84elapsed 392%CPU
> 508.75user 32.26system 2:17.83elapsed 392%CPU
> 508.63user 32.17system 2:17.88elapsed 392%CPU
> 509.01user 32.26system 2:17.90elapsed 392%CPU
> 509.08user 32.20system 2:17.95elapsed 392%CPU
>
> So looking at elapsed time, a granularity of 100ms is just behind the
> mainline score. However it is using slightly less user time and
> slightly more idle time, which indicates that balancing might have got
> a bit less aggressive.
>
> But anyway, it conclusively shows the efficiency impact of such tiny
> timeslices.

See test.kernel.org for how (the now defunct) SD was performing on kernbench. 
It had low latency _and_ equivalent throughput to mainline. Set the standard 
appropriately on both counts please.

-- 
-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]
  Powered by Linux