[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE/RFC] Really Fair Scheduler

    * Daniel Walker <> wrote:

    > The the patch is near the end of this email.. The most notable thing
    > about the rediff is the line count,
    > 4 files changed, 323 insertions(+), 729 deletions(-)
    > That's impressive (assuming my rediff is correct). [...]

    Yeah, at first glance i liked that too, then i looked into the diff and
    noticed that a good chunk of the removal "win" comes from the removal of
    ~35 comment blocks while adding new code that has no comments at all

    And if you look at the resulting code size/complexity, it actually
    increases with Roman's patch (UP, nodebug, x86):

    text data bss dec hex filename
    13420 228 1204 14852 3a04 sched.o.rc5
    13554 228 1228 15010 3aa2 sched.o.rc5-roman

    Although it _should_ have been a net code size win, because if you look
    at the diff you'll see that other useful things were removed as well:
    sleeper fairness, CPU time distribution smarts, tunings, scheduler
    instrumentation code, etc.

    > I also ran hackbench (in a haphazard way) a few times on it vs. CFS in
    > my tree, and RFS was faster to some degree (it varied)..

    here are some actual numbers for "hackbench 50" on -rc5, 10 consecutive
    runs fresh after bootup, Core2Duo, UP:

    -rc5(cfs) -rc5+rfs
    Time: 3.905 Time: 4.259
    Time: 3.962 Time: 4.190
    Time: 3.981 Time: 4.241
    Time: 3.986 Time: 3.937
    Time: 3.984 Time: 4.120
    Time: 4.001 Time: 4.013
    Time: 3.980 Time: 4.248
    Time: 3.983 Time: 3.961
    Time: 3.989 Time: 4.345
    Time: 3.981 Time: 4.294
    Avg: 3.975 Avg: 4.160 (+4.6%)
    Fluct: 0.138 Fluct: 1.671

    so unmodified CFS is 4.6% faster on this box than with Roman's patch and
    it's also more consistent/stable (10 times lower fluctuations).

    At lower hackbench levels (hackbench 10) the numbers are closer - that
    could be what you saw.

    But, this measurement too is apples to oranges, given the amount of
    useful code the patch removes - fact is that you can always speed up the
    scheduler by removing stuff, just run hackbench as SCHED_FIFO (via "chrt
    -f 90 ./hackbench 50") to see what a minimal scheduler can do.

    It would be far more reviewable and objectively judgeable on an item by
    item basis if Roman posted the finegrained patches i asked for. (which
    patch series should be sorted in order of intrusiveness - i.e. leaving
    the harder changes to the end of the series.)

    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: 2007-09-02 09:23    [W:0.027 / U:1.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site