[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [quad core results] BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:20:33 +0200
Frans Pop <> wrote:

> On Monday 07 September 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 4 cores, 8 threads. Which is basically the standard desktop cpu
> > going forward... (4 cores already is today, 8 threads is that any
> > day now)
> Despite that I'm personally more interested in what I have available
> here *now*. And that's various UP Pentium systems, one dual core
> Pentium D and Core Duo.
> I've been running BFS on my laptop today while doing CPU intensive
> jobs (not disk intensive), and I must say that BFS does seem very
> responsive. OTOH, I've also noticed some surprising things, such as
> processors staying on lower frequencies while doing CPU-intensive
> work.
> I feels like I have less of the mouse cursor and typing freezes I'm
> used to with CFS, even when I'm *not* doing anything special. I've
> been blaming those on still running with ordered mode ext3, but now
> I'm starting to wonder.
> I'll try to do more structured testing, comparisons and measurements
> later. At the very least it's nice to have something to compare
> _with_.

it's a shameless plug since I wrote it, but latencytop will be able to
tell you what your bottleneck is...
and that is very interesting to know, regardless of the "what scheduler
code" discussion;

Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-07 17:35    [W:0.209 / U:9.292 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site