* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hacked it a bit to make it accept two parameters : > -R <run_time_in_microsecond> : time spent burning CPU cycles at each round > -S <sleep_time_in_microsecond> : time spent getting a rest > > It now advances what it thinks is a second at each iteration, so that > it makes it easy to compare its progress with other instances (there > are seconds, minutes and hours, so it's easy to visually count up to > around 43200). > > The modified code is here : > > http://linux.1wt.eu/sched/orbitclock-0.2bench.tgz > > What is interesting to note is that it's easy to make X work a lot > (99%) by using 0 as the sleeping time, and it's easy to make the > process work a lot by using large values for the running time > associated with very low values (or 0) for the sleep time. > > Ah, and it supports -geometry ;-) > > It could become a useful scheduler benchmark !
i just tried ocbench-0.3, and it is indeed very nice! Would it make sense perhaps to (optionally?) also log some sort of periodic text feedback to stdout, about the quality of scheduling? Maybe even a 'run this many seconds' option plus a summary text output at the end (which would output measured runtime, observed longest/smallest latency and standard deviation of latencies maybe)? That would make it directly usable both as a 'consistency of X app scheduling' visual test and as an easily shareable benchmark with an objective numeric result as well. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/