Re: call for more SD versus CFS comparisons (was: Re: [ck] Mainline plans)
From: Con Kolivas
Date: Tue Jun 12 2007 - 06:34:00 EST
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 18:57, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > * Tobias Gerschner <tobias.gerschner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I did run massive_intr.c for 60 secs with increasing nproc (
> > > 10,20,30,40,50,60) waiting for effects.
> > >
> > > Below a small table of the results
Nice results. Thanks for taking the time to post them!
> > >
> > > 18.104.22.168-cfs-v16
> > >
> > > nproc , usability result
> > >
> > > 10 , serious frame drops , Firefox hardly recognizes clicked links,
> > > but still usable
> > > 20 - 30, usability loss ( somehow under cfs firefox never finished
> > > user requests like displaying web pages or opening new pages , no
> > > feedback anymore, sudden changes on the desktop )
> > ouch! The expected load-testing result under CFS should be something
> > like this:
> > http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2007-June/007817.html
> i have just tried the same workload with cfs and with sd048 from -ck,
> and cannot reproduce this. To make sure it's not some other change in
> -ck, could you try the pure SD patches ontop of 22.214.171.124 too:
I'm pleased you think the rest of my patches may help there but only the SD
patches affect scheduling unless you set a different scheduling policy or
there is a vm issue.
apart from ck-desktop-tune.patch which is in total this:
-int rr_interval __read_mostly = 8;
+int rr_interval __read_mostly = 6;
which is already a tunable that's part of SD.
So unless there's a vm issue (which does not appear to be the case) I can't
see how any of these will change Tobias' extensive testing results.
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/