[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:0.022 / U:50.656 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site