Hi all, After posting some benchmarks involving cfs (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/13/385), I got some feedback, so I decided to do a follow-up that'll hopefully fill in the gaps many people wanted to see filled. This time around I've done the benchmarks against 2.6.21, 2.6.22-ck1, and 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel (latest git as of 12 hours ago). All three .configs are attached. The benchmarks consist of lat_ctx and hackbench, both with a growing number of processes, as well as pipe-test. All benchmarks were also run bound to a single core. Since this time there are hundreds of lines of data, I'll post a reasonable amount here and attach the data files. There are graphs again this time, which I'll post links to as well as attach. I'll start with some selected numbers, which are preceded by the command used for the benchmark. for((i=2; i < 201; i++)); do lat_ctx -s 0 $i; done: (the left most column is the number of processes ($i)) 2.6.21 2.6.22-ck1 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel 15 5.88 4.85 5.14 16 5.80 4.77 4.76 17 5.91 4.84 4.92 18 5.79 4.86 4.83 19 5.89 4.94 4.93 20 5.78 4.81 5.13 21 5.88 5.02 4.94 22 5.79 4.79 4.84 23 5.93 4.86 5.05 24 5.73 4.76 4.90 25 6.00 4.94 5.19 for((i=1; i < 100; i++)); do hackbench $i; done: 2.6.21 2.6.22-ck1 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel 80 9.75 8.95 9.52 81 11.54 8.87 9.57 82 11.29 8.92 9.67 83 10.76 8.96 9.82 84 12.04 9.20 9.91 85 11.74 9.39 10.09 86 12.01 9.37 10.18 87 11.39 9.43 10.13 88 12.48 9.60 10.38 89 11.85 9.77 10.52 90 13.78 9.76 10.65 pipe-test: (the left most column is the run #) 2.6.21 2.6.22-ck1 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel 1 13.84 12.59 13.01 2 13.90 12.57 13.00 3 13.84 12.62 13.06 4 13.87 12.61 13.04 5 13.82 12.62 13.03 6 13.86 12.60 13.02 7 13.85 12.61 13.02 8 13.88 12.45 13.04 9 13.83 12.46 13.03 10 13.88 12.46 13.03 Bound to Single core: for((i=2; i < 201; i++)); do lat_ctx -s 0 $i; done: 2.6.21 2.6.22-ck1 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel 15 2.90 2.76 2.21 16 2.88 2.79 2.36 17 2.87 2.77 2.52 18 2.86 2.78 2.66 19 2.89 2.72 2.81 20 2.87 2.72 2.95 21 2.86 2.69 3.10 22 2.88 2.72 3.26 23 2.86 2.71 3.39 24 2.84 2.72 3.56 25 2.82 2.73 3.72 for((i=1; i < 100; i++)); do hackbench $i; done: 2.6.21 2.6.22-ck1 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel 80 14.29 10.86 12.03 81 14.40 11.25 12.17 82 15.00 11.42 12.33 83 14.87 11.12 12.51 84 15.37 11.42 12.66 85 15.75 11.68 12.79 86 15.64 11.95 12.95 87 15.80 11.64 13.12 88 15.70 11.91 13.25 89 15.10 12.19 13.42 90 16.24 12.53 13.54 pipe-test: 2.6.21 2.6.22-ck1 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel 1 9.27 8.50 8.55 2 9.27 8.47 8.55 3 9.28 8.47 8.54 4 9.28 8.48 8.54 5 9.28 8.48 8.54 6 9.29 8.46 8.54 7 9.28 8.47 8.55 8 9.29 8.47 8.55 9 9.29 8.45 8.54 10 9.28 8.46 8.54 Links to the graphs (the .dat files are in the same directory): http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/lat_ctx_benchmark2.png http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/hackbench_benchmark2.png http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/pipe-test_benchmark2.png http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_lat_ctx_benchmark2.png http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark2.png http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_pipe-test_benchmark2.png The only analysis I'll offer is that both sd and cfs are improvements, and I'm glad that there is a lot of work being done in this area of linux development. Much respect to Con Kolivas, Ingo Molnar, and Roman Zippel, as well all the others who have contributed. Any feedback is welcome. Regards, Rob
Attachment:
BOUND_hackbench_benchmark2.png
Description: PNG image
Attachment:
BOUND_lat_ctx_benchmark2.png
Description: PNG image
Attachment:
BOUND_pipe-test_benchmark2.png
Description: PNG image
Attachment:
hackbench_benchmark2.png
Description: PNG image
Attachment:
lat_ctx_benchmark2.png
Description: PNG image
Attachment:
pipe-test_benchmark2.png
Description: PNG image
Attachment:
data_files.tar.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
Attachment:
config-2.6.21.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
Attachment:
config-2.6.22-ck1.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
Attachment:
config-2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
- From: Ed Tomlinson <[email protected]>
- Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
- Prev by Date: Re: Wasting our Freedom
- Next by Date: Re: [00/41] Large Blocksize Support V7 (adds memmap support)
- Previous by thread: [PATCH -rc] KVM: Fix virtualization menu help text
- Next by thread: Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
- Index(es):