Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:22:59 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up |
| |
* Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca> wrote:
> Rob, > > I gather this was with the complete -ck patchset? It would be > interesting to see if just SD performed as well. If it does, CFS > needs more work. if not there are other things in -ck that really do > improve performance and should be looked into.
yeah. The biggest item in -ck besides SD is swap-prefetch, but that shouldnt have an effect in this case. I _think_ that most of the measured difference is due to scheduler details though. Right now my estimation is that with the patch i sent to Rob, and with latest sched-devel.git, CFS should perform as good or better than SD, even in these micro-benchmarks. (but i cannot tell what will happen on Rob's machine - so i'm keeping an open mind towards any other fixables :-) I'm curious about the next round of numbers (if Rob has time to do them).
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/
| |