Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [interbench numbers] Re: interactive task starvation | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:07:25 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |