Re: RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-25 Thread Con Kolivas
On Saturday 24 March 2007 04:57, Tim Chen wrote: > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 13:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > Volanomark is a purely yield() semantic dependant workload (as > > discussed many times previously). In the earlier form of RSDL I > > softened the effect of sched_yield but other changes

Re: RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-25 Thread Con Kolivas
On Saturday 24 March 2007 04:57, Tim Chen wrote: On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 13:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: Volanomark is a purely yield() semantic dependant workload (as discussed many times previously). In the earlier form of RSDL I softened the effect of sched_yield but other changes since

Re: RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-23 Thread Tim Chen
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 13:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > Volanomark is a purely yield() semantic dependant workload (as > discussed many times previously). In the earlier form of RSDL I > softened the effect of sched_yield but other changes since then have > made that softness bordering on a

Re: RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-23 Thread Tim Chen
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 13:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: Volanomark is a purely yield() semantic dependant workload (as discussed many times previously). In the earlier form of RSDL I softened the effect of sched_yield but other changes since then have made that softness bordering on a noop.

Re: RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-22 Thread Con Kolivas
On 23/03/07, Tim Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Con, I've tried running Volanomark and found a 80% regression with RSDL 0.31 scheduler on 2.6.21-rc4 on a 2 socket Core 2 quad cpu system (4 cpus per socket, 8 cpus for system). The results are sensitive to rr_interval. Using Con's patch to

Re: RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-22 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:21:46PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > I've tried running Volanomark and found a 80% regression > with RSDL 0.31 scheduler on 2.6.21-rc4 on a 2 socket Core 2 quad cpu > system (4 cpus per socket, 8 cpus for system). > The results are sensitive to rr_interval. Using Con's

RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-22 Thread Tim Chen
Con, I've tried running Volanomark and found a 80% regression with RSDL 0.31 scheduler on 2.6.21-rc4 on a 2 socket Core 2 quad cpu system (4 cpus per socket, 8 cpus for system). The results are sensitive to rr_interval. Using Con's patch to increase rr_interval to a large value of 100, the

RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-22 Thread Tim Chen
Con, I've tried running Volanomark and found a 80% regression with RSDL 0.31 scheduler on 2.6.21-rc4 on a 2 socket Core 2 quad cpu system (4 cpus per socket, 8 cpus for system). The results are sensitive to rr_interval. Using Con's patch to increase rr_interval to a large value of 100, the

Re: RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-22 Thread William Lee Irwin III
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:21:46PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: I've tried running Volanomark and found a 80% regression with RSDL 0.31 scheduler on 2.6.21-rc4 on a 2 socket Core 2 quad cpu system (4 cpus per socket, 8 cpus for system). The results are sensitive to rr_interval. Using Con's patch to

Re: RSDL 0.31 causes slowdown

2007-03-22 Thread Con Kolivas
On 23/03/07, Tim Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Con, I've tried running Volanomark and found a 80% regression with RSDL 0.31 scheduler on 2.6.21-rc4 on a 2 socket Core 2 quad cpu system (4 cpus per socket, 8 cpus for system). The results are sensitive to rr_interval. Using Con's patch to