[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
On 09/08/2009 05:20 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:13:34 +0300
> Nikos Chantziaras<> wrote:
>> On 09/08/2009 11:38 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:19:06 +0300
>>> Nikos Chantziaras<> wrote:
>>>> latencytop has this to say:
>>>> Though I don't really understand what this tool is trying to tell
>>>> me, I hope someone does.
>>> despite the untranslated content, it is clear that you have
>>> scheduler delays (either due to scheduler bugs or cpu contention)
>>> of upto 68 msecs... Second in line is your binary AMD graphics
>>> driver that is chewing up 14% of your total latency...
>> I've now used a correctly installed and up-to-date version of
>> latencytop and repeated the test. Also, I got rid of AMD's binary
>> blob and used kernel DRM drivers for my graphics card to throw fglrx
>> out of the equation (which btw didn't help; the exact same problems
>> occur).
>> Here the result:
>> Again: this is on an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU.
> so we finally have objective numbers!
> now the interesting part is also WHERE the latency hits. Because
> fundamentally, if you oversubscribe the CPU, you WILL get scheduling
> latency.. simply you have more to run than there is CPU.

Sounds plausible. However, with mainline this latency is very, very
noticeable. With BFS I need to look really hard to detect it or do
outright silly things, like a "make -j50". (At first I wrote "-j20"
here but then went ahead an tested it just for kicks, and BFS would
still let me use the GUI smoothly, LOL. So then I corrected it to

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-09 00:57    [W:0.262 / U:14.948 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site