Re: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy

[Roger Luethi]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:08:40 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >I timed a pathological benchmark from hell I've been playing with lately.
> >Three consecutive runs following a fresh boot. Time is in seconds:
> >
> >2.4.21			821	21	25
> >2.6.0-test3-mm1		724	946	896
> >2.6.0-test3-mm1-nick	905	987	997
> >
> >Runtime with ideal scheduling: < 2 seconds (we're thrashing).
> >
> 
> Cool. Can you post the benchmark source please?

http://hellgate.ch/code/ploc/thrash.c

A parallel kernel build can generate some decent thrashing, too, but I
wanted a short and simple test case that conveniently provides the
information I need for both logging daemon and post processing tool.

Note: The benchmark could trivially be made more evil which would prevent
2.4.21 from finishing over 30 times faster (as it often does). I
intentionally left it they way it is.

While everybody seems to be working on interactivity, I am currently
looking at this corner case. This should be pretty much orthogonal to your
own work.

Roger
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/