Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 May 2013 15:32:25 +0800 | Subject | Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg | From | Changlong Xie <> |
| |
2013/5/16 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:35:25PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> I tested all benchmarks on cover letter maintained, aim7, kbuild etc. >> with autogroup enabled. There is no clear performance change. >> But since the machine just run benchmark without anyother load, that >> doesn't enough. > > Back when we started with smp-fair cgroup muck someone wrote a test for it. I > _think_ it ended up in the LTP test-suite. >
Hi Peter
I just download the lastest ltp from http://sourceforge.net/projects/ltp/files/LTP%20Source/ltp-20130503/ and do cgroup benchmark tests on our SB-EP machine with 2S*8CORE*2SMT, 64G memory.
Following is my testing procedures: 1. tar -xvf ltp-full-20130503.tar 2. cd ltp-full-20130503 3. ./configure prefix=/mnt/ltp && make -j32 && sudo make install 4. cd /mnt/ltp
# create general testcase named cgroup_fj 5. echo -e "cgroup_fj run_cgroup_test_fj.sh" > runtest/cgroup
# we only test cpuset/cpu/cpuacct cgroup benchmark cases, here is my cgroup_fj_testcases.sh 6. [changlox@lkp-sb03 bin]$ cat testcases/bin/cgroup_fj_testcases.sh stress 2 2 1 1 1 stress 4 2 1 1 1 stress 5 2 1 1 1 stress 2 1 1 1 2 stress 2 1 1 2 1 stress 2 1 1 2 2 stress 2 1 1 2 3 stress 2 1 2 1 1 stress 2 1 2 1 2 stress 2 1 2 1 3 stress 2 1 2 2 1 stress 2 1 2 2 2 stress 4 1 1 1 2 stress 4 1 2 1 1 stress 4 1 2 1 2 stress 4 1 2 1 3 stress 5 1 1 1 2 stress 5 1 1 2 1 stress 5 1 1 2 2 stress 5 1 1 2 3 stress 5 1 2 1 1 stress 5 1 2 1 2 stress 5 1 2 1 3 stress 5 1 2 2 1 stress 5 1 2 2 2
# run test 7. sudo ./runltp -p -l /tmp/cgroup.results.log -d /tmp -o /tmp/cgroup.log -f cgroup
my test results: 3.10-rc1 patch1-7 patch1-8 duration=764 duration=754 duration=750 duration=764 duration=754 duration=751 duration=763 duration=755 duration=751
duration means the seconds of testing cost.
Tested-by: Changlong Xie <changlongx.xie@intel.com>
> Now I don't know if that's up-to-date enough to catch some of the cases we've > recently fixed (as in the past few years) so it might want to be updated. > > Paul, do you guys at Google have some nice test-cases for all this? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- Best regards Changlox
| |