Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] scheduler: active_load_balance fixes | From | Darren Hart <> | Date | Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:37:29 -0700 |
| |
On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 02:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > Darren Hart wrote: > > > > >The following patch against the latest mm fixes several problems with > > >active_load_balance(). > > > > > > > > > > This seems much better. Andrew can you put this into -mm please. > > > > Whenever we touch the load balancing we get sad little reports about > performance regressions two months later. How do we gain confidence in > this change? >
I ran kernbench and specjbb on a 16 way xeon ht numa machine (32 total sibling CPUs) and an 8 way ppc64 machine against 2.6.9-mm1 w/ and w/o my active_load_balance() patch. Kernbench was marginally faster on each machine, and specjbb performed better on 64% of the tests. SpecJBB is a bit erratic anyway, so I feel good about these numbers.
Kernbench results below. (2.6.9-mm1-ab is the run with the active_load_balance patch).
32 way xeon 2.6.9-mm1 Elapsed: 81.444s User: 1044.06s System: 138.008s CPU: 1451.2% 2.6.9-mm1-ab Elapsed: 81.372s User: 1037.842s System: 139.134s CPU: 1446%
8 way ppc64 2.6.9-mm1 Elapsed: 53.336s User: 352.932s System: 45.302s CPU: 746% 2.6.9-mm1-ab Elapsed: 53.24s User: 353.096s System: 44.98s CPU: 747%
-- Darren Hart IBM, Linux Technology Center 503 578 3185 dvhltc@us.ibm.com - 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/
| |