[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
On Saturday 21 April 2007 22:12, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Ingo, Hi Con,
> I promised to perform some tests on your code. I'm short in time right now,
> but I observed behaviours that should be commented on.
> 1) machine : dual athlon 1533 MHz, 1G RAM, kernel 2.6.21-rc7 + either
> scheduler Test: ./ocbench -R 250000 -S 750000 -x 8 -y 8
> ocbench:
> 2) SD-0.44
> Feels good, but becomes jerky at moderately high loads. I've started
> 64 ocbench with a 250 ms busy loop and 750 ms sleep time. The system
> always responds correctly but under X, mouse jumps quite a bit and
> typing in xterm or even text console feels slightly jerky. The CPU is
> not completely used, and the load varies a lot (see below). However,
> the load is shared equally between all 64 ocbench, and they do not
> deviate even after 4000 iterations. X uses less than 1% CPU during
> those tests.
> Here's the vmstat output :

> 3) CFS-v4
> Feels even better, mouse movements are very smooth even under high load.
> I noticed that X gets reniced to -19 with this scheduler. I've not looked
> at the code yet but this looked suspicious to me. I've reniced it to 0
> and it did not change any behaviour. Still very good. The 64 ocbench share
> equal CPU time and show exact same progress after 2000 iterations. The CPU
> load is more smoothly spread according to vmstat, and there's no idle (see
> below). BUT I now think it was wrong to let new processes start with no
> timeslice at all, because it can take tens of seconds to start a new
> process when only 64 ocbench are there. Simply starting "killall ocbench"
> takes about 10 seconds. On a smaller machine (VIA C3-533), it took me more
> than one minute to do "su -", even from console, so that's not X. BTW, X
> uses less than 1% CPU during those tests.
> willy@pcw:~$ vmstat 1

> 4) first impressions
> I think that CFS is based on a more promising concept but is less mature
> and is dangerous right now with certain workloads. SD shows some strange
> behaviours like not using all CPU available and a little jerkyness, but is
> more robust and may be the less risky solution for a first step towards
> a better scheduler in mainline, but it may also probably be the last O(1)
> scheduler, which may be replaced sometime later when CFS (or any other one)
> shows at the same time the smoothness of CFS and the robustness of SD.

I assumed from your description that you were running X nice 0 during all this
testing and left the tunables from both SD and CFS at their defaults; this
tends to have the effective equivalent of "timeslice" in CFS smaller than SD.

> I'm sorry not to spend more time on them right now, I hope that other
> people will do.

Thanks for that interesting testing you've done. The fluctuating cpu load and
the apparently high idle time means there is almost certainly a bug still in
the cpu accounting I do in update_cpu_clock. It looks suspicious to me
already on just my first glance. Fortunately the throughput does not appear
to be adversely affected on other benchmarks so I suspect it's lying about
the idle time and it's not really there. Which means it's likely also
accounting the cpu time wrongly. Which also means there's something I can fix
and improve SD further. Great stuff, thanks!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-21 14:45    [W:0.161 / U:1.168 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site