[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] sched: accurate user accounting
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * Vassili Karpov <> wrote:
>> Hello Ingo and others,
>> After reading and noticing few
>> refernces to accounting i decided to give CFS a try. With
>> sched-cfs-v2.6.21.4-16 i get pretty weird results, it seems like
>> scheduler is dead set on trying to move the processes to different
>> CPUs/cores all the time. And with hog (manually tweaking the amount
>> iterations) i get fairly strange resuls, first of all the process is
>> split between two cores, secondly while integral load provided by the
>> kernel looks correct, it's off by good 20 percent on each idividial
>> core.
>> (
>> Thought this information might be of some interest.
> hm - what does 'hog' do, can i download hog.c from somewhere? and also a in

> the alternating balancing might be due to an uneven number of tasks
> perhaps? If you have 3 tasks on 2 cores then there's no other solution
> to achieve even performance of each task but to rotate them amongst the
> cores.

One task, one thread. I have also tried to watch fairly demanding video
(Elephants Dream in 1920x1080/MPEG4) with mplayer, and CFS moves the
only task between cores almost every second.

>> P.S. How come the /proc/stat information is much closer to reality
>> now? Something like what Con Kolivas suggested was added to
>> sched.c?
> well, precise/finegrained accounting patches have been available for
> years, the thing with CFS is that there we get them 'for free', because
> CFS needs those metrics for its own logic. That's why this information
> is much closer to reality now. But note: right now what is affected by
> the changes in the CFS patches is /proc/PID/stat (i.e. the per-task
> information that 'top' and 'ps' displays, _not_ /proc/stat) - but more
> accurate /proc/stat could certainly come later on too.

Aha. I see, it's just that integral load for hog is vastly improved
compared to vanilla 2.6.21 (then again some other tests are off by a few
percent (at least), though they were fine with Con's patch (which was
announced at the beginning of this thread))

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-14 23:03    [W:0.053 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site