lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

* Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> > Well that's a really memory constrained MIPS device with like 16 MB of
> >> > RAM or so? So having effects from small things like changing details in
> >> > a kernel image is entirely plausible.
> >>
> >> Normally changing small details doesn't have much of an effect. While
> >> 16 MB is indeed not that much, we do usually have around 8 MB free
> >> with a full user space running. Changes to other subsystems normally
> >> produce consistent and repeatable differences that seem entirely
> >> unrelated to memory use, so any measurable difference related to
> >> scheduler changes is unlikely to be related to the low amount of RAM.
> >> By the way, we do frequently also test the same software with devices
> >> that have more RAM, e.g. 32 or 64 MB and it usually behaves in a very
> >> similar way.
> >
> > Well, Michael Buesch posted vmstat results, and they show what i have
> > found with my x86 simulated reproducer as well (these are Michael's
> > numbers):
> >
> > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
> > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
> > 1 0 0 15892 1684 5868 0 0 0 0 268 6 31 69 0 0
> > 1 0 0 15892 1684 5868 0 0 0 0 266 2 34 66 0 0
> > 1 0 0 15892 1684 5868 0 0 0 0 266 6 33 67 0 0
> > 1 0 0 15892 1684 5868 0 0 0 0 267 4 37 63 0 0
> > 1 0 0 15892 1684 5868 0 0 0 0 267 6 34 66 0 0
> >
> > on average 4 context switches _per second_. The scheduler is not a
> > factor on this box.
> >
> > Furthermore:
> >
> > | I'm currently unable to test BFS, because the device throws strange
> > | flash errors. Maybe the flash is broken :(
> >
> > So maybe those flash errors somehow impacted the measurements as well?
> I did some tests with BFS v230 vs CFS on Linux 2.6.30 on a different
> MIPS device (Atheros AR2317) with 180 MHz and 16 MB RAM. When running
> iperf tests, I consistently get the following results when running the
> transfer from the device to my laptop:
>
> CFS: [ 5] 0.0-60.0 sec 107 MBytes 15.0 Mbits/sec
> BFS: [ 5] 0.0-60.0 sec 119 MBytes 16.6 Mbits/sec
>
> The transfer speed from my laptop to the device are the same with BFS
> and CFS. I repeated the tests a few times just to be sure, and I will
> check vmstat later.

Which exact mainline kernel have you tried? For anything performance
related running latest upstream -git (currently at 202c467) would be
recommended.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-19 21:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site