lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: some more nifty benchmarks
Date
On Freitag, 5. April 2002 :22, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 22:49, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 2002-04-02 17:15:40, Ed Sweetman wrote:

[-]

> > Yep, FOUND it.
> > Ingo`s latest sched-O1-2.4.18-pre8-K3 is the culprit!!!
> > Even with -ac (2.4.19-pre2-ac2) and together with -aa (latest here is
> > 2.4.18-pre8-K3-VM-24-preempt-lock).
> >
> > Below are the number for 2.4.18+sched-O1-2.4.18-pre8-K3.
> > Have a look into the attachment, too.
> >
> > Hopefully you or Ingo will find something out.
>
> I seem to have lost your earlier emails. Did you get a max latency of
> around <2 before this 0(1) scheduler patch?

In short:

YES with 2.4 and with preemption+lock-break
I repeated it for 2.4.19-pre5+vm33. See results below.

It is NOT in any case an -aa VM or preemption+lock-break bug.
Ingo's latest sched-O1-2.4.18-pre8-K3.patch for 2.4 is the culprit. So all
latest -ac kernels are broken in this sense, too.

> 2.2 with low latency patch gets that. 2.4 with low latency patch is many
> many times worse. The high latency areas of the kernel are already known.

I know :-)
Bad we badly need a newer lock-break for 2.4 from Robert (sorry Andrew :-).
I will do some "stats data collection" with my next boot.

> It's just a matter of deciding how to deal with them that's the problem.
> It seems that it might be a general consensus that it can't be dealt with
> in 2.4 mainstream.

No I think it is not.
If we can eliminate the remaining bugs from O(1) and use preemption everything
should be smooth.

> As you've implied before though, the scheduler is much more important
> than latency is to the average user.

The O(1)-scheduler is great but broken (latency wise) in the current 2.4
version. Have anyone of you some older versions from Ingo around?

> As most people would know from
> 2.2, audio would skip unless it was running -20 nice and the highest
> priority etc. With 2.4's scheduler and preempt, well you dont have to
> worry about skips and you can leave the player at a normal nice and
> priority value.

That's not true with the O(1)-scheduler.
In most of my tests (Ingo got my results) you have to renice the audio daemon
to something like -16 (first "real time" class) and X to -10 (for good
interactivity) during "heavy" background stuff (40 gcc and 40 g++ processes
reniced +19 for example). This load resulting in ~350 processes, 80~85
running in parallel and sound playing on my "old" 1 GHz Athlon II with 640
MB...;-)

But that's not so good for the "normal" user. We need some "auto renicing".

BTW My former 2.4.17/2.4.18-pre numbers were much better for throughput and
somewhat for latency.

I used Andrea's -aa VM and Robert's preemption and lock-break on ReiserFS all
the time. But together with bootmem-2.4.17-pre6 and waitq-2.4.17-mainline-1.
Anyone know where I can get newer versions of them?

Best dbench 32 numbers were:
Throughput: ~55 MB/sec
real ~1:15

Last one:

Were is Ingo? --- I hope he is fine!

Regards,
Dieter

2.4.19-pre5-vm33

32 clients started
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................+..............+......................+........+...................................................................................................................+..+...........++.+....+++..+++++.+++++++..++++++++********************************
Throughput 40.4878 MB/sec (NB=50.6098 MB/sec 404.878 MBit/sec)
14.440u 50.650s 1:45.35 61.7% 0+0k 0+0io 939pf+0w

SunWave1 dbench/latencytest0.42-png# time ./do_tests none 3 256 0 350000000
x11perf - X11 performance program, version 1.5
The XFree86 Project, Inc server version 40200000 on :0.0
from SunWave1
Fri Apr 5 20:06:34 2002

Sync time adjustment is 0.2107 msecs.

3000 reps @ 2.2644 msec ( 442.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 2.2663 msec ( 441.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 2.2635 msec ( 442.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 2.2654 msec ( 441.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 2.2714 msec ( 440.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
15000 trep @ 2.2662 msec ( 441.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels

800 reps @ 11.6017 msec ( 86.2/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
800 reps @ 11.6358 msec ( 85.9/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
800 reps @ 11.6463 msec ( 85.9/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
800 reps @ 11.6122 msec ( 86.1/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
800 reps @ 11.6322 msec ( 86.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
4000 trep @ 11.6257 msec ( 86.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square

fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
4.2ms ( 0)|
1MS num_time_samples=63551 num_times_within_1ms=61215 factor=96.324212
2MS num_time_samples=63551 num_times_within_2ms=63546 factor=99.992132
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
3.8ms ( 0)|
1MS num_time_samples=20758 num_times_within_1ms=19668 factor=94.749012
2MS num_time_samples=20758 num_times_within_2ms=20693 factor=99.686868
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
30.0ms ( 3)|
1MS num_time_samples=17604 num_times_within_1ms=16825 factor=95.574869
2MS num_time_samples=17604 num_times_within_2ms=17591 factor=99.926153
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 20:09 tmpfile
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
14.8ms ( 12)|
1MS num_time_samples=24448 num_times_within_1ms=23863 factor=97.607166
2MS num_time_samples=24448 num_times_within_2ms=24425 factor=99.905923
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 20:09 tmpfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 20:10 tmpfile2
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
4.5ms ( 1)|
1MS num_time_samples=16142 num_times_within_1ms=15463 factor=95.793582
2MS num_time_samples=16142 num_times_within_2ms=16134 factor=99.950440
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 20:09 tmpfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 20:10 tmpfile2
122.970u 18.150s 4:09.80 56.4% 0+0k 0+0io 10418pf+0w

*******************************************************************************

2.4.19-pre5-vm33-rml

32 clients started
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................++.....+.........+.........+....+.++.....+.+.+...+.+.....++.+...+++++...++.+.++++++++********************************
Throughput 39.637 MB/sec (NB=49.5463 MB/sec 396.37 MBit/sec)
14.370u 53.580s 1:47.59 63.1% 0+0k 0+0io 939pf+0w

SunWave1 dbench/latencytest0.42-png# time ./do_tests none 3 256 0 350000000
x11perf - X11 performance program, version 1.5
The XFree86 Project, Inc server version 40200000 on :0.0
from SunWave1
Fri Apr 5 21:29:15 2002

Sync time adjustment is 0.2172 msecs.

3000 reps @ 2.2866 msec ( 437.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 2.2899 msec ( 437.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 2.2885 msec ( 437.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 2.2847 msec ( 438.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 2.2958 msec ( 436.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
15000 trep @ 2.2891 msec ( 437.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels

400 reps @ 11.7923 msec ( 84.8/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
400 reps @ 11.8264 msec ( 84.6/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
400 reps @ 11.8240 msec ( 84.6/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
400 reps @ 11.8370 msec ( 84.5/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
400 reps @ 11.8484 msec ( 84.4/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
2000 trep @ 11.8256 msec ( 84.6/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square

fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
4.2ms ( 0)|
1MS num_time_samples=48986 num_times_within_1ms=47284 factor=96.525538
2MS num_time_samples=48986 num_times_within_2ms=48979 factor=99.985710
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
3.8ms ( 0)|
1MS num_time_samples=20764 num_times_within_1ms=20537 factor=98.906762
2MS num_time_samples=20764 num_times_within_2ms=20762 factor=99.990368
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
3.8ms ( 0)|
1MS num_time_samples=20603 num_times_within_1ms=20109 factor=97.602291
2MS num_time_samples=20603 num_times_within_2ms=20602 factor=99.995146
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 21:31 tmpfile
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
6.8ms ( 2)|
1MS num_time_samples=25283 num_times_within_1ms=24655 factor=97.516118
2MS num_time_samples=25283 num_times_within_2ms=25280 factor=99.988134
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 21:31 tmpfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 21:32 tmpfile2
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
5.3ms ( 1)|
1MS num_time_samples=16210 num_times_within_1ms=15669 factor=96.662554
2MS num_time_samples=16210 num_times_within_2ms=16203 factor=99.956817
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 21:31 tmpfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Apr 5 21:32 tmpfile2
116.600u 19.040s 3:54.15 57.9% 0+0k 0+0io 10418pf+0w

[unhandled content-type:application/x-tgz][unhandled content-type:application/x-tgz]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.093 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site