Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: volanoMark regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1 | | From | "Zhang, Yanmin" <> | | Date | Mon, 12 May 2008 13:43:01 +0800 |
| |
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 13:02 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 10:22 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:33:20AM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > To make the testing faster, I changed some parameters of volanoMark. > > > The result of 2.6.26-rc1(CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED=y) is about 2%~3% less than the one of > > > 2.6.25 (CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y). One more testing: volanoMark result of 2.6.25 (CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED=y) is about 6%~7% better than the one of 2.6.26-rc1(CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED=y).
> A quick update: > With 2.6.26-rc2 (CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y), volanoMark result on my 8-core stoakley > is about 10% worse than the one of 2.6.26-rc1. > > > > > This for confirming my observation. It seems much better than the 50% regression > > reported earlier (with 2.6.26-rc1 and CONFIG_USER_SCHED). > > > > Ideally we should get same results with CONFIG_USER_SCHED also (in > > 2.6.26-rc1). That needs some work in load balance code. Till that is > > tackled, IMHO we can retain all the current code by either: > > > > 1. Disabling CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED (or better) > > 2. Enable CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED and CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED > > > > Ingo/Peter, What's your opinion?
-- 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/
|  |