Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:35 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:24 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > > > xmodmap doesn't seem to be running in this sample.
> > > 
> > > That's weird, it was definitely running. I did:
> > > 
> > > sleep 1; xmodmap .xmodmap-carl
> > > 
> > > in one xterm, and then switched to the other and ran the sched_debug
> > > dump. I have to do it this way, as X will not move focus once xmodmap
> > > starts running. It could be that xmodmap is mostly idle, and the real
> > > work is done by Xorg and/or xfwm4 (my window manager).
> > 
> > Hm.  Ok, I'll crawl over it, see if anything falls out.
> 
> That seems to be confirmed with the low context switch rate of the perf
> stat of xmodmap. If I run perf stat -a to get a system wide collection
> for xmodmap, I get:
> 
>  Performance counter stats for 'xmodmap .xmodmap-carl':
> 
>    20112.060925  task-clock-msecs         #      1.998 CPUs 
>          629360  context-switches         #      0.031 M/sec
>               8  CPU-migrations           #      0.000 M/sec
>           13489  page-faults              #      0.001 M/sec
>   <not counted>  cycles                  
>   <not counted>  instructions            
>   <not counted>  cache-references        
>   <not counted>  cache-misses            
> 
>    10.067532449  seconds time elapsed
> 
> And again, system is idle while this is happening. Can't rule out that
> this is some kind of user space bug of course.

All I'm seeing so far is massive CPU usage for dinky job.

	-Mike

--
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/