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]
