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

[Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com>]

On Thursday 19 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>* Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>> Good idea. The machine I'm typing from now has 1000 scheddos running
>> at +19, and 12 gears at nice 0. [...]
>>
>> From time to time, one of the 12 aligned gears will quickly perform a
>> full quarter of round while others slowly turn by a few degrees. In
>> fact, while I don't know this process's CPU usage pattern, there's
>> something useful in it : it allows me to visually see when process
>> accelerate/decelerate. [...]
>
>cool idea - i have just tried this and it rocks - you can easily see the
>'nature' of CPU time distribution just via visual feedback. (Is there
>any easy way to start up 12 glxgears fully aligned, or does one always
>have to mouse around to get them into proper position?)
>
>btw., i am using another method to quickly judge X's behavior: i started
>the 'snowflakes' plugin in Beryl on Fedora 7, which puts a nice smooth
>opengl-rendered snow fall on the desktop background. That gives me an
>idea about how well X is scheduling under various workloads, without
>having to instrument it explicitly.
>
yes, its a  cute idea, till you switch away from that screen to check progress 
on something else, like to compose this message.

===========
5913 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1182.499 FPS
6238 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1247.556 FPS
11380 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2275.905 FPS
10691 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2138.173 FPS
8707 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1741.305 FPS
10669 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2133.708 FPS
11392 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2278.037 FPS
11379 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2275.711 FPS
11310 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2261.861 FPS
11386 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2277.081 FPS
11292 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2258.353 FPS
11352 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2270.297 FPS
11415 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2282.886 FPS
11406 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2281.037 FPS
11483 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2296.533 FPS
11510 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2301.883 FPS
11123 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2224.266 FPS
8980 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1795.861 FPS
=======
The over 2000fps reports were while I was either looking at htop, or starting 
this message, both on different screens.  htop said it was using 95+ % of the 
cpu even when its display was going to /dev/null.  So 'Kewl' doesn't seem to 
get us apples to apples numbers we can go to the window and bet 
win-place-show based on them alone.

FWIW, running the nvidia-9755 drivers here.

So if we are going to use that as a judgement operator, it obviously needs 
some intelligently applied scaling before they are worth more than a 
subjective feel is.

>	Ingo
>-
>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/



-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos.
		-- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981
-
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/