> > Volanomark runs better
> > and is only 40% (instead of 80%) down from old scheduler
> > without CFS.
> 40 or 80 % is still a huge regression.
> Dmitry Adamushko
Can anyone explain precisely what Volanomark is doing? If it's something
dumb like "looping on sched_yield until the 'right' thread runs and finishes
what we're waiting for" then I think any regression can be ignored.
This applies if and only if CFS' sched_yield behavior is sane and Volano's
is insane.
A sane sched_yield implementation must do two things:
1) Reward processes that actually do yield most of their CPU time to another
process.
2) Make an effort to run every ready-to-run process at the same or higher
static priority level before re-scheduling this process. (That won't always
be possible due to SMP issues, but a reasonable effort is needed.)
If CFS is doing these two things, and Volanomark is looping on sched_yield
until the 'right thread' runs, then CFS is doing the right and Volanomark
isn't. Volanomark deserves to lose.
If CFS binds processes to processors more tightly and thus sched_yield can't
yield to a process that was planned to run on another CPU in the future,
that would be a legitimate complaint about CFS.
DS
-
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]
