lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [interbench numbers] Re: interactive task starvation
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 06:53 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
    > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:43 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
    > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22 pm, Mike Galbraith wrote:
    > > > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 07:27 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
    > > > > I wonder why the results are affected even without any throttling
    > > > > settings but just patched in? Specifically I'm talking about deadlines
    > > > > met with video being sensitive to this. Were there any other config
    > > > > differences between the tests? Changing HZ would invalidate the results
    > > > > for example. Comments?
    > > >
    > > > I wondered the same. The only difference then is the lower idle sleep
    > > > prio, tighter timeslice enforcement, and the SMP buglet fix for now <
    > > > p->timestamp due to SMP rounding. Configs are identical.
    > >
    > > Ok well if we're going to run with this set of changes then we need to assess
    > > the affect of each change and splitting them up into separate patches would
    > > be appropriate normally anyway. That will allow us to track down which
    > > particular patch causes it. That won't mean we will turn down the change
    > > based on that one result, though, it will just help us understand it better.
    >
    > I'm investigating now.

    Nothing conclusive. Some of the difference may be because interbench
    has a dependency on the idle sleep path popping tasks in a prio 16
    instead of 18. Some of it may be because I'm not restricting IO, doing
    that makes a bit of difference. Some of it is definitely plain old
    jitter.

    Six hours is long enough. I'm all done chasing interbench numbers.

    -Mike

    virgin

    --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Video in the presence of simulated ---
    Load Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met
    None 0.031 +/- 0.396 16.7 100 99.9
    X 0.722 +/- 3.35 30.7 100 97
    Burn 0.531 +/- 7.42 246 99.1 98
    Write 0.302 +/- 2.31 40.4 99.9 98.5
    Read 0.092 +/- 1.11 32.9 99.9 99.7
    Compile 0.428 +/- 2.77 36.3 99.9 97.9
    Memload 0.235 +/- 3.3 104 99.5 99.1

    throttle patches with throttling disabled

    --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Video in the presence of simulated ---
    Load Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met
    None 0.185 +/- 1.6 18.8 100 99.1
    X 1.27 +/- 4.47 27 100 94.3
    Burn 1.57 +/- 13.3 345 98.1 93
    Write 0.819 +/- 3.76 34.7 99.9 96
    Read 0.301 +/- 2.05 18.7 100 98.5
    Compile 4.22 +/- 12.9 233 92.4 80.2
    Memload 0.624 +/- 3.46 66.7 99.6 97

    minus idle sleep

    --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Video in the presence of simulated ---
    Load Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met
    None 0.222 +/- 1.82 16.8 100 98.8
    X 1.02 +/- 3.9 30.7 100 95.7
    Burn 0.208 +/- 3.67 141 99.8 99.3
    Write 0.755 +/- 3.62 37.2 99.9 96.4
    Read 0.265 +/- 1.94 16.9 100 98.6
    Compile 2.16 +/- 15.2 333 96.7 90.7
    Memload 0.723 +/- 3.5 37.4 99.8 96.3

    minus don't restrict IO

    --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Video in the presence of simulated ---
    Load Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met
    None 0.226 +/- 1.82 16.8 100 98.8
    X 1.38 +/- 4.68 49.4 99.9 93.9
    Burn 0.513 +/- 9.62 339 98.8 98.4
    Write 0.418 +/- 2.7 30.8 99.9 97.9
    Read 0.565 +/- 2.99 16.7 100 96.8
    Compile 1.05 +/- 13.6 545 99.1 95.1
    Memload 0.345 +/- 3.23 80.5 99.8 98.5



    -
    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: 2006-03-23 12:09    [W:2.730 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site