* Bill Davidsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have posted the results of my initial testing, measuring IPC rates
> using various schedulers under no load, limited nice load, and heavy
> load at nice 0.
>
> http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/ctxbench_testing.html
nice! For this to become really representative though i'd like to ask
for a real workload function to be used after the task gets the
lock/message. The reason is that there is an inherent balancing conflict
in this area: should the scheduler 'spread' tasks to other CPUs or not?
In general, for all workloads that matter, the answer is almost always:
'yes, it should'.
But in your ctxbench results the work a task performs after doing IPC is
not reflected (the benchmark goes about to do the next IPC - hence
penalizing scheduling strategies that move tasks to other CPUs) - hence
the bonus of a scheduler properly spreading out tasks is not measured
fairly. A real-life IPC workload is rarely just about messaging around
(a single task could do that itself) - some real workload function is
used. You can see this effect yourself: do a "taskset -p 01 $$" before
running ctxbench and you'll see the numbers improve significantly on all
of the schedulers.
As a solution i'd suggest to add a workload function with a 100 or 200
usecs (or larger) cost (as a fixed-length loop or something like that)
so that the 'spreading' effect/benefit gets measured fairly too.
Ingo
-
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]
