lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
From
Date
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:09 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:28 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > > No difference. Then I tried switching NO_NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS on, and then
> > > I get:
> > >
> > > Performance counter stats for 'xmodmap .xmodmap-carl':
> > >
> > > 9.009137 task-clock-msecs # 0.447 CPUs
> > > 18 context-switches # 0.002 M/sec
> > > 1 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec
> > > 315 page-faults # 0.035 M/sec
> > > <not counted> cycles
> > > <not counted> instructions
> > > <not counted> cache-references
> > > <not counted> cache-misses
> > >
> > > 0.020167093 seconds time elapsed
> > >
> > > Woot!
> >
> > Something is very seriously hosed on that box... clock?
>
> model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2400 @ 1.83GHz
>
> Throttles down to 1.00GHz when idle.
>
> > Can you turn it back on, and do..
>
> I guess you mean turn NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS back on, correct?
>
> > while sleep .1; do cat /proc/sched_debug >> foo; done
> > ..on one core, and (quickly;) xmodmap .xmodmap-carl, then send me a few
> > seconds worth (gzipped up) to eyeball?
>
> Attached.

xmodmap doesn't seem to be running in this sample.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-10 13:23    [W:0.031 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site