![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>> > Kernbench: >> > Elapsed User System CPU >> > sched50 29.96s 288.308s 83.606s 1240.8% >> > sched52 29.836s 285.832s 84.464s 1240.4% >> > sched53 29.364s 284.808s 83.174s 1252.6% >> > stock50 31.074s 303.664s 89.194s 1264.2% >> > stock53 31.204s 306.224s 87.776s 1263.2% >> >> Not sure what you're correllating here because your rows are all named >> the same thing. However, the new version seems to be much slower >> on systime (about 7-8% for me), which roughly correllates with your >> last two rows above. Me no like. > > Sorry, I forgot to include a bit better description of what the > row labels mean. > > sched50 = linux 2.5.50 with the NUMA scheduler > sched52 = linux 2.5.52 with the NUMA scheduler > sched53 = linux 2.5.53 with the NUMA scheduler > stock50 = linux 2.5.50 without the NUMA scheduler > stock53 = linux 2.5.53 without the NUMA scheduler > > Thus, this shows that the NUMA scheduler drops systime by ~5.5 secs, > or roughly 8%. So, my testing is not showing an increase in systime > like you apparently are seeing. Sorry, the row names weren't that bad if I actually read them carefully ;-) I was doing a slightly different test - Erich's old sched code vs the new both on 2.5.54, and seem to have a degredation. M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32 [W:0.439 / U:0.330 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||