Re: [quad core results] BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks andmeasurements

From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Mon Sep 07 2009 - 11:33:52 EST

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:20:33 +0200
Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Monday 07 September 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 4 cores, 8 threads. Which is basically the standard desktop cpu
> > going forward... (4 cores already is today, 8 threads is that any
> > day now)
> Despite that I'm personally more interested in what I have available
> here *now*. And that's various UP Pentium systems, one dual core
> Pentium D and Core Duo.
> I've been running BFS on my laptop today while doing CPU intensive
> jobs (not disk intensive), and I must say that BFS does seem very
> responsive. OTOH, I've also noticed some surprising things, such as
> processors staying on lower frequencies while doing CPU-intensive
> work.
> I feels like I have less of the mouse cursor and typing freezes I'm
> used to with CFS, even when I'm *not* doing anything special. I've
> been blaming those on still running with ordered mode ext3, but now
> I'm starting to wonder.
> I'll try to do more structured testing, comparisons and measurements
> later. At the very least it's nice to have something to compare
> _with_.

it's a shameless plug since I wrote it, but latencytop will be able to
tell you what your bottleneck is...
and that is very interesting to know, regardless of the "what scheduler
code" discussion;

Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at