Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:06:37 -0800 (PST) | From | David Lang <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update |
| |
another thing that would be interesting is what is the overhead on UP or small (2-4 way) SMP machines
David Lang
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:52:25 -0800 > From: Mike Kravetz <mkravetz@sequent.com> > To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> > Cc: lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > > Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield > > > (which was previously posted to this (lse-tech) list by Bill > > > Hartner). Tests were run on a system with 8 700 MHz Pentium > > > III processors. > > > > > > microseconds/yield > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.4 2.4-multi-queue > > > ------------ --------- -------- --------------- > > > 16 18.740 4.603 1.455 > > > > I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline O(N) > > scheduler with over 7 tasks in the runqueue (actually I'm not sure if the > > number was 7 but certainly it was under 10). So if you also use a O(1) > > scheduler too as I guess (since you have a chance to run fast on the lots of > > tasks running case) the most interesting thing is how you score with 2/4/8 > > tasks in the runqueue (I think the tests on the O(1) scheduler patch was done > > at max on a 2-way SMP btw). (the argument for which Davide's patch wasn't > > included is that most machines have less than 4/5 tasks in the runqueue at the > > same time) > > > > Andrea > > Thanks for the suggestion. The only reason I hesitated to test with > a small number of threads is because I was under the assumption that > this particular benchmark may have problems if the number of threads > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try > with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for > what benchmarks/test methods I could use for scheduler testing. If > you remember what people have used in the past, please let me know. > > -- > Mike Kravetz mkravetz@sequent.com > IBM Linux Technology Center > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |