Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] | Date | Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:33:56 +1000 |
| |
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 18:55, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:59:00AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote: > > > 2.6.21-rc7-cfs-v2 > > > 534.80user 30.92system 2:23.64elapsed 393%CPU > > > 534.75user 31.01system 2:23.70elapsed 393%CPU > > > 534.66user 31.07system 2:23.76elapsed 393%CPU > > > 534.56user 30.91system 2:23.76elapsed 393%CPU > > > 534.66user 31.07system 2:23.67elapsed 393%CPU > > > 535.43user 30.62system 2:23.72elapsed 393%CPU > > > > Thanks for testing this! Could you please try this also with: > > > > echo 100000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity > > 507.68user 31.87system 2:18.05elapsed 390%CPU > 507.99user 31.93system 2:18.09elapsed 390%CPU > 507.46user 31.78system 2:18.03elapsed 390%CPU > 507.68user 31.93system 2:18.11elapsed 390%CPU > 507.63user 31.98system 2:18.01elapsed 390%CPU > 507.83user 31.94system 2:18.28elapsed 390%CPU > > > could you maybe even try a more extreme setting of: > > > > echo 500000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity > > 504.87user 32.13system 2:18.03elapsed 389%CPU > 505.94user 32.29system 2:17.87elapsed 390%CPU > 506.10user 31.90system 2:17.96elapsed 389%CPU > 505.02user 32.02system 2:17.96elapsed 389%CPU > 506.69user 31.96system 2:17.82elapsed 390%CPU > 505.70user 31.84system 2:17.90elapsed 389%CPU > > > Again, for comparison 2.6.21-rc7 mainline: > > 508.87user 32.47system 2:17.82elapsed 392%CPU > 509.05user 32.25system 2:17.84elapsed 392%CPU > 508.75user 32.26system 2:17.83elapsed 392%CPU > 508.63user 32.17system 2:17.88elapsed 392%CPU > 509.01user 32.26system 2:17.90elapsed 392%CPU > 509.08user 32.20system 2:17.95elapsed 392%CPU > > So looking at elapsed time, a granularity of 100ms is just behind the > mainline score. However it is using slightly less user time and > slightly more idle time, which indicates that balancing might have got > a bit less aggressive. > > But anyway, it conclusively shows the efficiency impact of such tiny > timeslices.
See test.kernel.org for how (the now defunct) SD was performing on kernbench. It had low latency _and_ equivalent throughput to mainline. Set the standard appropriately on both counts please.
-- -ck - 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/
| |