Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:51:05 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46 |
| |
* Michael Gerdau <mgd@technosis.de> wrote:
> > Here i'm assuming that the vmstats are directly comparable: that > > your number-crunchers behave the same during the full runtime - is > > that correct? > > Yes, basically it does (disregarding small fluctuations)
ok, good.
> I'll see whether I can produce some type of absolute performance > measure as well. Thinking about it I guess this should be fairly > simple to implement.
oh, you are writing the number-cruncher? In general the 'best' performance metrics for scheduler validation are the ones where you have immediate feedback: i.e. some ops/sec (or ops per minute) value in some readily accessible place, or some "milliseconds-per-100,000 ops" type of metric - whichever lends itself better to the workload at hand. If you measure time then the best is to use long long and nanoseconds and the monotonic clocksource:
unsigned long long rdclock(void) { struct timespec ts;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &ts);
return ts.tv_sec * 1000000000ULL + ts.tv_nsec; }
(link to librt via -lrt to pick up clock_gettime())
The cost of a clock_gettime() (or of a gettimeofday()) can be a couple of microseconds on some systems, so it shouldnt be done too frequently.
Plus an absolute metric of "the whole workload took X.Y seconds" is useful too.
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/
| |