Hi,
On 8/22/05, Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > [1.] One line summary of the problem:
> > oops when shuting down system
> >
> > [2.] Full description of the problem/report:
> > After kernbenching nicksched (heav load make -j128) I just record
> > results on
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:44, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well it will survive all right, but eventually get into swap thrash
> > territory and that's not a meaningful cpu scheduler benchmark.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Con
>
> Ok. How about make -j? It's
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well it will survive all right, but eventually get into swap thrash territory
> and that's not a meaningful cpu scheduler benchmark.
>
> Cheers,
> Con
>
Ok. How about make -j? It's one of kernbench test runs, on my box load
average > 1500 ;).
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:16, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > > Hi,
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > > here are kernbench results:
> >
> > Nice to see you using kernbench :)
> >
> > > ./kernbench -M -o
Hi,
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi
>
> > here are kernbench results:
>
> Nice to see you using kernbench :)
>
> > ./kernbench -M -o 128
> > [..]
> > Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
>
> Was there any reas
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> here are kernbench results:
Nice to see you using kernbench :)
> ./kernbench -M -o 128
> [..]
> Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
Was there any reason you chose 128? Optimal usually works out automatically
from kernbench to 4x numb
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
oops when shuting down system
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
After kernbenching nicksched (heav load make -j128) I just record
results on cd and shutdown system.
[3.] Keywords (i.e., modules, networking, kernel):
plugsched, nicksched, sysfs, vfs
Hi,
here are kernbench results:
cpusched=ingosched
./kernbench -M -o 128
[..]
Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
Elapsed Time 365,4
User Time 620,8
System Time 64,6
Percent CPU 187,2
Context Switches 38296,8
Sleeps 37867
(reboot)
---
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 10:31 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> It's an X problem and it's being fixed. Get over it, we're not tuning
> the scheduler for a broken app.
>
You're right, this problem seems much, much better in Xorg 6.8.2. I
think the Damage extension might be responsible. There's definite
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 10:31 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:13, Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> > I agree that tweaking the scheduler is probably pointless, as long as X
> > is burning gazillions of CPU cycles redrawing things that don't need to
> > be redrawn.
> >
> > Then again even th
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:13, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 14:36 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> > > Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't
> > > destroy Audio and Video? The results that I just posted for
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 14:36 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> > Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't
> > destroy Audio and Video? The results that I just posted for
> > spa_no_frills with X reniced to -10 suggest that
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
> >>
> >>The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks mos
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - onl
Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with
default max_ia_bonus and max_tpt_bon
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
>
> The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.
>
> Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod w
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
> here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with
default max_ia_bonus and max_tpt_bonus manages to delive
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
cpusched=ingosched
Using 1844991 loops per ms, running every load for 30 seconds
Benchmarking kernel 2.6.13-rc6-2 at datestamp 200508181941
--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated ---
LoadLatency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:48 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> >>Con Kolivas wrote:
> > He did a make allyesconfig which is a bit different and probably far too
> > i/o bound. By the way a single kernel compile is hardly a reproduc
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Pyth
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
> >>Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
> >>>[bits deleted]
> >>
> >>Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached P
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
| Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
-
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:04, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
> here are additional staircase scheduler benchmarks.
>
> (make all -j8)
>
> scheduler:
> staircase
>
> sched_compute=1
> real49m48.619s
> user77m20.788s
> sys 6m7.653s
Very nice thank you.
Since you are benchmarking, here is
Hi,
here are additional staircase scheduler benchmarks.
(make all -j8)
scheduler:
staircase
sched_compute=1
schedstat:
version 12
timestamp 4294712019
cpu0 1 0 0 31 0 18994 4568 7407 5903 10267 6976 14426
domain0 3 18574 18398 6 3938 193 4 0 18398 335 285 0 1191 175 0 0 285 4753 4508
75 6843 33
Hi,
On 8/17/05, Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was intrigued by the fact that zaphod(d,d) and zaphod(d,0) take longer
> in real time but use less cpu. I was assuming that this meant that some
> other job was getting some cpu but the schedstats data doesn't support
> that. Also it
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
> Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
> > [bits deleted]
>
> Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
>
> | Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
>
> ---
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
| Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
---
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
II 2.6.12 kernel compilation. (make allyesconfig, time make all -j64)
1
scheduler:
ingosched
schedstat:
version 12
timestamp 4294703525
cpu0 0 0 56 56 169 18916 4327 7006 5153 8279 4999 14589
domain0 3 14286 13960 223 8331 213 41 0 13960 515 361 8 4456 4
28 matches
Mail list logo