Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:41:09 +1000 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6 |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote: > >>On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>>here are interbench v0.29 resoults: >> >>The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting. >> >>Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with >>default max_ia_bonus and max_tpt_bonus manages to deliver under 100ms >>max latency. As expected with interactivity bonus disabled it performs >>horribly. > > > The compile load is not a real compile load; it is an extreme exaggeration of > what happens during a compile and this is done to increase the sensitivity of > this test. It is _not_ worth trying to get a perfect score in this. > > >>I'd like to see some results with X reniced to -10. Despite what the >>2.6 release notes say, this still seems to make a difference. > > > Well of course it helps X - but then any X load totally fscks up audio on > mainline and staircase which is why it's recommended not to renice it.
Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't destroy Audio and Video? The results that I just posted for spa_no_frills with X reniced to -10 suggest that the other schedulers could cope with something closer to zero.
Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/
| |