lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [REPORT] 2.6.21.1 vs 2.6.21-sd046 vs 2.6.21-cfs-v6

* Michael Gerdau <mgd@technosis.de> wrote:

> There are 3 scenarios:
> j1 - all 3 tasks run sequentially
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns=4000000
> /proc/sys/kernel/rr_interval=16
> j3 - all 3 tasks run in parallel
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns=4000000
> /proc/sys/kernel/rr_interval=16
> j3big - all 3 tasks run in parallel with timeslice extended
> by 2 magnitudes (not run for mainline)
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns=400000000
> /proc/sys/kernel/rr_interval=400
>
> All 3 tasks are run while the system does nothing else except for
> the "normal" (KDE) daemons. The system had not been used for
> interactive work during the tests.
>
> I'm giving user time as provided by the "time" cmd followed by wallclock time
> (all values in seconds).
>
> LTMM
> j1 j3 j3big
> 2.6.21-cfs-v6 5655.07/ 5682 5437.84/ 5531 5434.04/ 8072
> LTMB
> 2.6.21-cfs-v6 7729.81/ 7755 7470.10/10244 7449.16/10186
> LTBM
> 2.6.21-cfs-v6 7720.70/ 7746 7567.09/10362 7464.17/10335
> LTMM+LTMB+LTBM
> 2.6.21-cfs-v6 21105.58/21183 20475.03/26137 20347.37/28593

> User time apparently is subject to some variance. I'm particularly
> surprised by the wallclock time of scenario j1 and j3 for case LTMM
> with 2.6.21-cfs-v6. I'm not sure what to make of this, i.e. whether I
> had happening something else on my machine during j1 of LTMM -- that's
> always been the first test I ran and it might be that there were still
> some other jobs running after the initial boot.

thanks for the testing!

regarding the fairness of the different schedulers, please note the
different runtimes for each component of the workload:

LTMM: 5655.07/ 5682
LTMB: 7729.81/ 7755
LTBM: 7720.70/ 7746

this means that a fair scheduler would _not_ be the one that finishes
them first on wall-clock time (!). A fair scheduler would run each of
them at 33% capacity until the fastest one (LTMM) reaches ~5650 seconds
runtime and finishes, and _then_ the remaining ~2050 seconds of runtime
would be done at 50%/50% capacity between the remaining two jobs. I.e.
the fair wall-clock results should be around:

LTMM: ~8500 seconds
LTMB: ~10600 seconds
LTBM: ~10600 seconds

(but the IO portion of the workloads and other scheduling effects could
easily shift these numbers by a few minutes.)

regarding the results: it seems the wallclock portion of LTMM/j3 is too
small - even though the 3 tasks ran in parallel, in the CFS test LTMM
finished just as fast as if it were running alone, right? That does not
seem to be logical and indeed suggests some sort of testing artifact.

That makes it hard to judge which scheduler achieved the above 'ideal
fair distribution' of the workloads better - for some of the results it
was SD, for some it was CFS - but the missing LTMM/j3 number makes it
hard to decide it conclusively. They are certainly both close enough and
the noise of the results seems quite high.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-03 14:31    [W:0.050 / U:1.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site