Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:02:20 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [TEST RESULT]massive_intr.c -- cfs/vanilla/sd-0.40 |
| |
* surya.prabhakar@wipro.com <surya.prabhakar@wipro.com> wrote:
> Hi Ingo, > Did a test with massive_intr.c on a standard linux desktop. > for vanilla, con's Sd-0.40 and cfs.
thanks!
> [surya@bluegenie tests]$ ./massive_intr 10 10 > 002435 00000120 > 002439 00000120 > 002441 00000120 > 002434 00000120 > 002436 00000120 > 002440 00000120 > 002432 00000120 > 002437 00000120 > 002433 00000120 > 002438 00000120 > > Felt it is too much fair, will try another pass ;)
hehe :)
> [surya@bluegenie tests]$ ./massive_intr 10 10 > 002961 00000121 > 002965 00000120 > 002964 00000121 > 002959 00000120 > 002956 00000121 > 002963 00000121 > 002960 00000121 > 002962 00000121 > 002958 00000122 > 002957 00000122
btw., other schedulers might work better with some more test-time: i'd suggest to use 60 seconds (./massive_intr 10 60) [or maybe more, using more threads] to see long-term fairness effects.
> [...] Will be trying out ringtest in the next round.
cool. ringtest.c is intended to be used the following way: start it, it will generate a 99% busy system (but it is using a ring of 100 tasks, where each tasks runs for 100 msecs then sleeps for 1 msec, so every task gets a turn every 10 seconds). If you add a pure CPU hog to the system, for example an infinite shell loop:
while :; do :; done &
then a 'fair' scheduler would give roughly 50% of CPU time to the CPU hog (and the ringtest.c tasks take up the other 50%).
Ingo - 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/
| |