Re: Linux 2.6.23

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

 



Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:

;) I think you snipped the important bit:

"the peak is terrible but it has virtually no dropoff and performs better under load than the default 2.6.21 scheduler." (verbatim)

hm, i understood that peak remark to be in reference to FreeBSD's scheduler (which the FreeBSD guys are primarily interested in obviously), not v2.6.21 - but i could be wrong.

In any case, there is indeed a regression with sysbench and a low number of threads, and it's being fixed. The peak got improved visibly in sched-devel:

  http://people.redhat.com/mingo/misc/sysbench-sched-devel.jpg

but there is still some peak regression left, i'm testing a patch for that.

There's one important bit missing from that graph, the 2.6.23-SCHED_BATCH values. Without that we can't tell how much improvement is from sched-devel and how much from SCHED_BATCH. Clearly 2.6.23 is better than 2.6.22.any in this test, the locking issues seem to dominate that difference to the point that nothing else would be informative.

This weekend I have to do some building of kernels for various machines, so I intend to run some builds SCHED_BATCH and some will just run. If I find anything interesting I'll report.

--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

-
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