[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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?
    >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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.021 / U:4.860 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site