lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
Date
On 09/07/2009 12:49 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> [...]
> And I have to apologize for using a large system to test this on, I
> realize it's out of the scope of BFS, but it's just easier to fire one
> of these beasts up than it is to sacrifice my notebook or desktop
> machine...

How does a kernel rebuild constitute "sacrifice"?


> So it's a 64 thread box. CFS -jX runtime is the baseline at
> 100, lower number means faster and vice versa. The latency numbers are
> in msecs.
>
>
> Scheduler Runtime Max lat Avg lat Std dev
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> CFS 100 951 462 267
> CFS-x2 100 983 484 308
> BFS
> BFS-x2
>
> And unfortunately this is where it ends for now, since BFS doesn't boot
> on the two boxes I tried.

Then who post this in the first place?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-07 12:15    [W:0.514 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site