Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/18/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The obligatory graphs: > > > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_NOPREEMPT_lat_ctx_benchmark.png > > > http://www.healthcarelinen

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-18 Thread Rob Hussey
On 9/18/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The obligatory graphs: > > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_NOPREEMPT_lat_ctx_benchmark.png > > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_NOPREEMPT_hackbench_benchmark

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The obligatory graphs: > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_NOPREEMPT_lat_ctx_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_NOPREEMPT_hackbench_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_N

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-18 Thread Rob Hussey
On 9/18/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A cursory glance suggests that performance wrt lat_ctx and hackbench > > has increased (lower numbers), but degraded quite a lot for pipe-test. > > The numbers for pipe-test are extremely stable tho

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A cursory glance suggests that performance wrt lat_ctx and hackbench > has increased (lower numbers), but degraded quite a lot for pipe-test. > The numbers for pipe-test are extremely stable though, while the > numbers for hackbench are more erratic (w

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Rob Hussey
On 9/18/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:30:05AM -0400, Rob Hussey wrote: > > I should have pointed out before that I don't really have a dual-core > > system, just a P4 with Hyper-Threading (I loosely used core to refer > > to processor). > > Ju

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Rob, On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:30:05AM -0400, Rob Hussey wrote: > I should have pointed out before that I don't really have a dual-core > system, just a P4 with Hyper-Threading (I loosely used core to refer > to processor). Just for reference, we call them "siblings", not "cores" on HT. I bel

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Rob Hussey
On 9/17/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > i've meanwhile tested hackbench 90 and the performance difference > > between -ck and -cfs-devel seems to be mostly down to the more precise > > (but slower) sched_clock() introduced in v2.6.23 and

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Rob Hussey
On 9/17/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark2.png > > heh - am i the only one impressed by the consistency of the blue line in > this graph? :-) [ and the green line look

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:06:40PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:43:42PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:45:59PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote: > > > The copy list, removed by Ingo is restored. Playing fair game, Willy! > > > > Sorry Oleg, I don'

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i've meanwhile tested hackbench 90 and the performance difference > between -ck and -cfs-devel seems to be mostly down to the more precise > (but slower) sched_clock() introduced in v2.6.23 and to the startup > penalty of freshly created tasks. Rob,

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rob, > > I gather this was with the complete -ck patchset? It would be > interesting to see if just SD performed as well. If it does, CFS > needs more work. if not there are other things in -ck that really do > improve performance and should be lo

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:45:59PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote: > > The copy list, removed by Ingo is restored. Playing fair game, Willy! > > Sorry Oleg, I don't understand why you added me to this thread. And I > don't understand at all what your inten

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:43:42PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:45:59PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote: > > > The copy list, removed by Ingo is restored. Playing fair game, Willy! > > > > Sorry Oleg, I don't understand why y

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Oleg Verych
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:43:42PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:45:59PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote: > > The copy list, removed by Ingo is restored. Playing fair game, Willy! > > Sorry Oleg, I don't understand why you added me to this thread. And I > don't understand at

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Willy Tarreau
since they wonder like me. Regards, Willy > Roman, please, find whole thread here: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/580665 > > > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.ck > > Subject: Re: Scheduler

Re: [ck] Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Jos Poortvliet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/17/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark2.png > > > > heh - am i the only one impressed by the consistency of

Re: [ck] Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Jos Poortvliet
On 9/17/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark2.png > > heh - am i the only one impressed by the consistency of the blue line in > this graph? :-) [ and the green line look

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/benchmarks/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark2.png heh - am i the only one impressed by the consistency of the blue line in this graph? :-) [ and the green line looks a bit like a .. staircase? ] i've meanwhile tested hackben

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I gather this was with the complete -ck patchset? It would be > interesting to see if just SD performed as well. If it does, CFS > needs more work. if not there are other things in -ck that really do > improve performance and should be looked into.

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > After posting some benchmarks involving cfs > (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/13/385), I got some feedback, so I > decided to do a follow-up that'll hopefully fill in the gaps many > people wanted to see filled. thanks for the update! > I'l

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

2007-09-17 Thread Ed Tomlinson
Rob, I gather this was with the complete -ck patchset? It would be interesting to see if just SD performed as well. If it does, CFS needs more work. if not there are other things in -ck that really do improve performance and should be looked into. Thanks Ed Tomlinson On September 17, 2007, R