On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:49:27AM -0500, Jun Nakajima wrote:
> I tried to run SDET (Software Development Environment Throughput), which
> basically is a system level, throughput oriented benchmark, on the 2.4.0
> kernel and 2.4.0 kernel with this patch.
Thanks for running this. I too remember
I tried to run SDET (Software Development Environment Throughput), which
basically is a system level, throughput oriented benchmark, on the 2.4.0
kernel and 2.4.0 kernel with this patch.
I guess many (old?) Unix guys are familiar with it, and it is (was?)
sometimes used to check some aspects of
On Monday 22 January 2001 08:57, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> Per popular demand. Here are a few numbers for small thread counts
> running the sched_yield_test benchmark on a 2-way SMP with the following
> characteristics.
>
> model name : Pentium III (Katmai)
> stepping: 3
> cpu MHz
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to
Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > >microseconds/yield
> > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue
> > > - ---
> > > 16 18.7404.603 1.455
> >
> > I reme
As promised, here are some numbers for low thread counts from the
benchmark Andrew and Davide provided. I ran the benchmark for
1,2,4 and 8 threads. I ran the test 5 times for each thread count
and used 60 seconds as the measure time in each case.
2.4.0
-
1 1785408 178
On Friday 19 January 2001 15:23, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:03:06PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
>
> > > voidoneatwork(int thr)
> > > {
> > > int i;
> > > while (!start) /* don't disturb pthread_create() */
> > > usleep(
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:03:06PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > voidoneatwork(int thr)
> > {
> > int i;
> > while (!start) /* don't disturb pthread_create() */
> > usleep(1);
> >
> > actthreads++;
> > while (!stop)
> > {
> >
On Friday 19 January 2001 13:59, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:49:21PM -0800, Mike Kravetz showed his lack
>
> of internet slang understanding and wrote:
> > It was my intention to post IIRC numbers for small thread counts today.
> > However, the benchmark (not the system) seems
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:49:21PM -0800, Mike Kravetz showed his lack
of internet slang understanding and wrote:
>
> It was my intention to post IIRC numbers for small thread counts today.
> However, the benchmark (not the system) seems to hang on occasion. This
> occurs on both the unmodified
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 05:34:35PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:30:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> > > with a smaller number o
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:12:11PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > incurred in the current implementation. To maintain existing
> > scheduler behavior, we look at all CPU specific runqueues to find
> > the highest priority (goodness) task in the system. Therefore,
>
> do you have cpu-affinity? the
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:03:05PM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
>
> Mike sounds good, we will do all our measurements from now on with thread
> count for the entire range from 1 to 16 and
> then in power of twos upto 2048 and for maxcpus=1,2,4,6,8. Do you think
> that 4096 is overkill ? So far t
ROTECTED]> on 01/19/2001 12:11:04 PM
To: Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:47:06AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> What you can see from these numbers is that
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:47:06AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> What you can see from these numbers is that MQ does an awesome job up to
> 1024 threads. When measuring in the future, we will take from now on the
> general concern about low number of threads into account. Your points are
> well
date
> >
> >
> >
> > another thing that would be interesting is what is the overhead on UP or
> > small (2-4 way) SMP machines
> >
> > David Lang
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
D]>, Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
You might want to rerun the tests with less cache heavy procs. The 2meg
xeons you are using could distort things from what the average linux
914-945-2003(fax) 914-945-4425 TL: 862-2003
>
>
>
> David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@lists.sourceforge.net on 01/19/2001
> 11:06:37 AM
>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> To: Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL P
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@lists.sourceforge.net on 01/19/2001
11:06:37 AM
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue
TED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > Here are som
gt;, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline
O(N)
> scheduler with over 7 tasks in
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:35:02AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > > >microseconds/yield
> > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue
> > > > - --
On Thursday 18 January 2001 17:39, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> > with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
>
> OK!
>
> > what benchmarks/te
On Thursday 18 January 2001 17:33, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:08:52AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > > > >microseconds/yield
> > > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-mu
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > >microseconds/yield
> > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue
> > > - ---
> > > 16 18.7404.603
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:30:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> > with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
>
> OK!
>
> > what benc
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
OK!
> what benchmarks/test methods I could use for scheduler testing. If
> you remember what p
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:08:52AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > > >microseconds/yield
> > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue
> > > > -
While I agree that this is probably only a win for very specialized tasks,
I'd be interested in seeing this patch implemented on a NUMA machine, with
one runqueue per node... anybody willing to try it? I don't have access to
one. How about from the Linux Scalability project at SGI? any comments?
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > >microseconds/yield
> > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue
> > > - ---
> > > 16 18.7404.603
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline O(N)
> scheduler with over 7 tasks in the runqueue (actually I'm not sure if the
> number was 7 but certainly it was under 10). So if you also use a O(1)
>
> >microseconds/yield
> > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue
> > - ---
> > 16 18.7404.603 1.455
>
> I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield
> > (which was previously posted to this (lse-tech) list by Bill
> > Hartner). Tests were run on a sys
What affect does this scheduler have on 1 - 5 tasks??
Gerhard
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> I just posted an updated version of the multi-queue scheduler
> for the 2.4.0 kernel. This version also contains support for
> realtime tasks. The patch can be found at:
>
> http
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield
> (which was previously posted to this (lse-tech) list by Bill
> Hartner). Tests were run on a system with 8 700 MHz Pentium
> III processors.
>
>
I just posted an updated version of the multi-queue scheduler
for the 2.4.0 kernel. This version also contains support for
realtime tasks. The patch can be found at:
http://lse.sourceforge.net/scheduling/
Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield
(which was previously posted
36 matches
Mail list logo
