[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

    * Ed Tomlinson <> 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).

    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: 2007-09-17 22:27    [W:0.020 / U:10.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site