[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:0.111 / U:7.116 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site