lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: Check nr_running before calling pick_next_task in schedule().
From
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 00:41 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>
>> You've completely failed to provide any sort of rationale for the patch
>> nor did you provide a use-case with performance numbers. This just isn't
>> making much sense at all.
>>
> Regarding taking branch, it needs performance numbers - I agree. But,
> I'm not quite agree that - it's not just making any sense. Will try to
> do some performance testing on it.

I tried to do some testing with the applied patch using kernbench
(with likely branch removed). I did it twice with load -j {,2,4,6,8}.
Kernel version tagged with -schedpatch indicates kernel with this
applied and -noschedpatch is the default. In first case, with this
patch applied Elapsed time is lesser. In the second run with -j 2 and
-j 4 -schedpatch kernel is slow, but with -j 6 and -j 8 it takes less
elapsed time. Also tested with 'nosmp', with this patch, elapsed time
is lesser. So, for better interpretation and full log of test results
I'm attaching the kernbench.log. Please, see whether it looks
convincing to you or not. Tests are done on core i3 machine.


Thanks,
Rakib
[unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-09 06:45    [W:0.063 / U:11.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site