Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.5.53] NUMA scheduler (1/3) | From | Michael Hohnbaum <> | Date | 06 Jan 2003 18:23:34 -0800 |
| |
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 22:07, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >> > 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% > > > > 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 > > 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.
Martin,
I ran 2.5.54 with an older version of Erich's NUMA scheduler and with the version sent out for 2.5.53. Results were similar:
Kernbench: Elapsed User System CPU sched54 29.112s 283.888s 82.84s 1259.4% oldsched54 29.436s 286.942s 82.722s 1256.2%
sched54 = linux 2.5.54 with the 2.5.53 version of the NUMA scheduler oldsched54 = linux 2.5.54 with an earlier version of the NUMA scheduler
The numbers for the new version are actually a touch better, but close enough to be within a reasonable margin of error.
I'll post numbers against stock 2.5.54 and include schedbench, tomorrow.
Michael
-- Michael Hohnbaum 503-578-5486 hohnbaum@us.ibm.com T/L 775-5486
- 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/
| |