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:0.021 / U:0.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site