Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:13:56 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 09:30 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > On 26 March 2012 00:37, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > Yeah. In all the interactivity testing I've ever done, it's really hard > > to not see what you expect and/or hope to see. For normal desktop use, > > I don't see any real difference with BFS vs CFS unless I load test of > > course, and that can go either way, depending on the load. > > > > Example: > > > > 3.3.0-bfs vs 3.3.0-cfs - identical config > > > > Q6600 desktop box doing a measured interactivity test. > > > > time mplayer BigBuckBunny-DivXPlusHD.mkv, with massive_intr 8 as competition > > > > no bg load real 9m56.627s 1.000 > > CFS real 9m59.199s 1.004 > > BFS real 12m8.166s 1.220 > > > > As you can see, neither scheduler can run that perfectly on my box, as > > the load needs a tad more than its fair share. However, the Interactive > > Experience was far better in CFS in this case due to it being more fair. > > In BFS, the interactive tasks (mplayer/Xorg) could not get their fair > > share, causing interactivity to measurably suffer. > > massive_intr runs a number of threads that each run for 8ms and then > sleep for 1ms. That means they are 89% cpu bound. Run 8 of them and > your CPU load is 88.8 * 8 = 7.1. So now you're testing a difficult > mplayer benchmark in the presence of a load of 7.1 on a CPU with 4 > cores. I don't know how much CPU the playback of your particular video > is but I suspect it does require a fair amount of CPU based on the CPU > it got back in your test. I can virtually guarantee that the amount of > CPU BFS is giving to mplayer is proportional to how much CPU is left. > Ergo as far as I can see, BFS is likely being absolutely perfectly > fair. This sort of fairness equation has been already elucidated in > the pHD that I linked to in my original post and he has done a much > more thorough analysis than this kind of drive-by test that you're > doing and misinterpreting has already shown that BFS is fair to a > fault. > > snip the rest > > 'top' snapshots are uninteresting because CFS and BFS report cpu time > completely differently and a single snapshot tells us nothing. > > Snip uninteresting-to-desktop-user throughput benchmarks.
You accuse others of disinterest in their dirty underwear, and wave away the wide skid marks in your own with a flick of the wrist. Amazing.
-Mike
| |