Messages in this thread | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | Subject | Re: [announce] CFS-devel, performance improvements | Date | Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:59:58 -0400 |
| |
On Sep 13, 2007, at 21:47:25, Rob Hussey wrote: > On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >> are you sure this is happening with the latest iteration of the >> patch too? (with the combo-3.patch?) You can pick it up from here: >> >> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/devel/sched-cfs- >> v2.6.23-rc6-v21-combo-3.patch > > I managed to work it all out (it was my fault after all), and I've now > made the changes you suggested to my .configs for 2.6.23-rc1 and > 2.6.23-rc6. I've done the benchmarks all over, including tests with > the task bound to a single core. Without further ado, the numbers I > promised: > > [...] > > I've made graphs like last time: > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/lat_ctx_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/hackbench_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/pipe-test_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/BOUND_lat_ctx_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/BOUND_pipe-test_benchmark.png
Well looking at these graphs (and the fixed one from your second email), it sure looks a lot like CFS is doing at *least* as well as the old scheduler in every single test, and doing much better in most of them (in addition it's much more consistent between runs). This seems to jive with all the other benchmarks and overall empirical testing that everyone has been doing. Overall I have to say a job well done for Ingo, Peter, Con, and all the other major contributors to this impressive endeavor.
Cheers, Kyle Moffett
- 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/
| |