[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:0.045 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site