Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:22:00 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy |
| |
Roger Luethi wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:08:40 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>>I timed a pathological benchmark from hell I've been playing with lately. >>>Three consecutive runs following a fresh boot. Time is in seconds: >>> >>>2.4.21 821 21 25 >>>2.6.0-test3-mm1 724 946 896 >>>2.6.0-test3-mm1-nick 905 987 997 >>> >>>Runtime with ideal scheduling: < 2 seconds (we're thrashing). >>> >>> >>Cool. Can you post the benchmark source please? >> > >http://hellgate.ch/code/ploc/thrash.c > >A parallel kernel build can generate some decent thrashing, too, but I >wanted a short and simple test case that conveniently provides the >information I need for both logging daemon and post processing tool. > >Note: The benchmark could trivially be made more evil which would prevent >2.4.21 from finishing over 30 times faster (as it often does). I >intentionally left it they way it is. > >While everybody seems to be working on interactivity, I am currently >looking at this corner case. This should be pretty much orthogonal to your >own work. >
Yes, improvements for this problem are usually in the form of a secondary scheduler of sorts somewhere in the VM. Hard problem.
- 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/
| |