lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [long] Another BFS versus CFS shakedown
Date
On Friday 11 September 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Note, the one you used was a still buggy version of latt.c producing
> bogus latency numbers - you will need the fix to it attached below.

Yes, I'm aware of that and have already copied Jens' latest version.

> Furthermore, the following tune might be needed on mainline to make
> it produce consistently good max numbers (not just good averages):
>
> echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_wakeup_granularity_ns

Ack. I've seen the patches to change some defaults floating by.
Hmmm. I think the proposed new default for my system is 2ms with 2 CPUs?

I will not test against TIP at this time, but I plan to do the following:
- repeat my tests now using vanilla 2.6.31 for both BFS and CFS
This will provide a baseline to verify improvements.
- do two additional runs with CFS with some modified tunables
- do one more run probably when .32-rc2 is out
I'd expect that to have the scheduler fixes, while the worst post-merge
issues should be resolved.

I also have a couple of ideas for getting additional data. I'll post my
results as follow-ups.

I'm very impressed with the responses to the issues that have been raised,
but I think we do owe Con a huge thank you for setting off that process.

I also think there is a lot to be said for having a very straightforward
alternative scheduler available for baseline comparisons. It's much
easier to come out and say "something's broken" if you know some latency
issue is not due to buggy hardware or applications or orange bunnies with
a cosmic ray gun. I'll not go into the question whether such a scheduler
should be in mainline or not.

Cheers,
FJP


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-11 10:33    [W:0.409 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site