lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.5.53] NUMA scheduler (1/3)
>> > Kernbench:
>> > Elapsed User System CPU
>> > sched50 29.96s 288.308s 83.606s 1240.8%
>> > sched52 29.836s 285.832s 84.464s 1240.4%
>> > sched53 29.364s 284.808s 83.174s 1252.6%
>> > stock50 31.074s 303.664s 89.194s 1264.2%
>> > stock53 31.204s 306.224s 87.776s 1263.2%
>>
>> Not sure what you're correllating here because your rows are all named
>> the same thing. However, the new version seems to be much slower
>> on systime (about 7-8% for me), which roughly correllates with your
>> last two rows above. Me no like.
>
> Sorry, I forgot to include a bit better description of what the
> row labels mean.
>
> sched50 = linux 2.5.50 with the NUMA scheduler
> sched52 = linux 2.5.52 with the NUMA scheduler
> sched53 = linux 2.5.53 with the NUMA scheduler
> stock50 = linux 2.5.50 without the NUMA scheduler
> stock53 = linux 2.5.53 without the NUMA scheduler
>
> Thus, this shows that the NUMA scheduler drops systime by ~5.5 secs,
> or roughly 8%. So, my testing is not showing an increase in systime
> like you apparently are seeing.

Sorry, the row names weren't that bad if I actually read them carefully ;-)

I was doing a slightly different test - Erich's old sched code vs the new
both on 2.5.54, and seem to have a degredation.

M.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.055 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site