-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
osdl hardware, contest results, 2.5.52-mm2 with scheduler tunable - exit
weight (ew1= exit weight ==1 and so on)
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
ew0 [5] 105.3 90 16 22 2.91
ew1 [5] 86.4 97 12 18 2.39
ew2 [5] 74.9 109 9 18 2.07
ew3 [5] 84.2 100 11 19 2.33
ew4 [5] 83.8 102 10 18 2.31
ew5 [5] 89.9 93 12 20 2.48
ew6 [5] 97.5 88 13 20 2.69
ew7 [5] 89.2 95 12 20 2.46
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
ew0 [5] 89.2 90 32 2 2.46
ew1 [5] 90.5 88 33 2 2.50
ew2 [5] 87.2 91 32 2 2.41
ew3 [5] 88.7 92 32 2 2.45
ew4 [5] 91.5 88 32 2 2.53
ew5 [5] 87.7 89 32 2 2.42
ew6 [5] 90.2 87 32 2 2.49
ew7 [5] 88.6 91 32 2 2.45
It seems with these results at least, benefit is gained from it being on
versus off. The actual value seems not important wrt contest.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+BNqcF6dfvkL3i1gRAqeeAJ9b3OLhmb0737HfbJG1N9QMOou8gQCeJ6OJ
p2IhcdJ3QeBx9k3QX5+6yzk=
=Iaf8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Saturday 21 December 2002 22:18, Con Kolivas wrote:
Hey Con,
> osdl hardware, contest results, 2.5.52-mm2 with scheduler tunable - exit
> weight (ew1= exit weight ==1 and so on)
Can you please try another thing?
kernel/sched.c
/*
* If the child was a (relative-) CPU hog then decrease
* the sleep_avg of the parent as well.
*/
if (p->sleep_avg < p->parent->sleep_avg)
p->parent->sleep_avg = (p->parent->sleep_avg * exit_weight +
p->sleep_avg) / (exit_weight + 1);
Remove these please and run again.
ciao, Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:49 am, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> On Saturday 21 December 2002 22:18, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> Hey Con,
>
> > osdl hardware, contest results, 2.5.52-mm2 with scheduler tunable - exit
> > weight (ew1= exit weight ==1 and so on)
>
> Can you please try another thing?
>
> kernel/sched.c
>
> /*
> * If the child was a (relative-) CPU hog then decrease
> * the sleep_avg of the parent as well.
> */
> if (p->sleep_avg < p->parent->sleep_avg)
> p->parent->sleep_avg = (p->parent->sleep_avg * exit_weight
> + p->sleep_avg) / (exit_weight + 1);
>
> Remove these please and run again.
Sure why not
noload:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 39.2 181 0 0 1.08
2552mm2noew [5] 39.6 180 0 0 1.09
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 36.5 194 0 0 1.01
2552mm2noew [5] 36.5 194 0 0 1.01
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 46.5 152 8 41 1.28
2552mm2noew [5] 49.1 143 10 50 1.36
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 52.8 154 1 10 1.46
2552mm2noew [5] 57.7 160 1 10 1.59
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 76.1 124 1 8 2.10
2552mm2noew [5] 70.1 128 1 8 1.94
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 74.5 112 11 20 2.06
2552mm2noew [5] 67.3 117 8 17 1.86
io_other:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 59.9 134 6 18 1.65
2552mm2noew [5] 66.2 131 9 21 1.83
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 50.5 147 5 6 1.39
2552mm2noew [5] 50.2 149 5 6 1.39
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 43.7 167 0 9 1.21
2552mm2noew [5] 43.5 166 0 9 1.20
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.52-mm2 [7] 66.0 141 39 3 1.82
2552mm2noew [5] 64.7 136 38 3 1.79
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+B7yAF6dfvkL3i1gRAhjaAJ4r0rEcvy95o28bw7WoSBoe7ZfmAgCgpHJS
HFJaBj8sBtA1MyzK/7qptQg=
=N3fU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 21 December 2002 19:18, Con Kolivas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> osdl hardware, contest results, 2.5.52-mm2 with scheduler tunable -
> exit weight (ew1= exit weight ==1 and so on)
>
> io_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> ew0 [5] 105.3 90 16 22 2.91
> ew1 [5] 86.4 97 12 18 2.39
> ew2 [5] 74.9 109 9 18 2.07
> ew3 [5] 84.2 100 11 19 2.33
> ew4 [5] 83.8 102 10 18 2.31
> ew5 [5] 89.9 93 12 20 2.48
> ew6 [5] 97.5 88 13 20 2.69
> ew7 [5] 89.2 95 12 20 2.46
In spite of worrying reports of decreasing single task performance,
does it make sense to add "null_load" test? ;)
--
vda
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:24 am, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On 21 December 2002 19:18, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > osdl hardware, contest results, 2.5.52-mm2 with scheduler tunable -
> > exit weight (ew1= exit weight ==1 and so on)
> >
> > io_load:
> > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > ew0 [5] 105.3 90 16 22 2.91
> > ew1 [5] 86.4 97 12 18 2.39
> > ew2 [5] 74.9 109 9 18 2.07
> > ew3 [5] 84.2 100 11 19 2.33
> > ew4 [5] 83.8 102 10 18 2.31
> > ew5 [5] 89.9 93 12 20 2.48
> > ew6 [5] 97.5 88 13 20 2.69
> > ew7 [5] 89.2 95 12 20 2.46
>
> In spite of worrying reports of decreasing single task performance,
> does it make sense to add "null_load" test? ;)
I've simplified the data. There is no significant difference in the no_load
groups with changes to the scheduler tunables over useful ranges.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+CXyRF6dfvkL3i1gRAtSyAJ9XThpp5iCI1FcjDxVOESbm5ialywCgg7Vb
HN+jWurjIwXngqCUOmDWhh0=
=7Iy8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----