I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least
*something* in your tree isn't ...
Kernbench:
Elapsed System User CPU
elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24 146.60 1117.61 2516.67
elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27 141.14 1099.91 2374.33
elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88 142.41 1104.85 2403.67
elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23 145.04 1100.70 2431.00
(elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT)
Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone?
M.
"Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least
> *something* in your tree isn't ...
>
> Kernbench:
> Elapsed System User CPU
> elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24 146.60 1117.61 2516.67
> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27 141.14 1099.91 2374.33
> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88 142.41 1104.85 2403.67
> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23 145.04 1100.70 2431.00
>
> (elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT)
Sounds like the CPU scheduler, yes
> Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone?
Nick has tossed out and redone all the scheduler patches from -mm4, but I
assume it's all pretty much the same.
At http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/mbligh.gz is a rollup
(against 2.6.12-rc1) of
sched2-fix-schedstats-warning.patch
sched2-cleanup-wake_idle.patch
sched2-improve-load-balancing-pinned-tasks.patch
sched2-reduce-active-load-balancing.patch
sched2-fix-smt-scheduling-problems.patch
sched2-add-debugging.patch
sched2-less-aggressive-idle-balancing.patch
sched2-balance-timers.patch
sched2-tweak-affine-wakeups.patch
sched2-no-aggressive-idle-balancing.patch
sched2-balance-on-fork.patch
sched2-schedstats-update-for-balance-on-fork.patch
sched2-sched-tuning.patch
sched2-sched-domain-sysctl.patch
add-do_proc_doulonglongvec_minmax-to-sysctl-functions.patch
--Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote (on Saturday, March 19, 2005 14:07:54 -0800):
> "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least
>> *something* in your tree isn't ...
>>
>> Kernbench:
>> Elapsed System User CPU
>> elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24 146.60 1117.61 2516.67
>> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27 141.14 1099.91 2374.33
>> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88 142.41 1104.85 2403.67
>> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23 145.04 1100.70 2431.00
>>
>> (elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT)
>
> Sounds like the CPU scheduler, yes
>
>> Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone?
>
> Nick has tossed out and redone all the scheduler patches from -mm4, but I
> assume it's all pretty much the same.
>
> At http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/mbligh.gz is a rollup
> (against 2.6.12-rc1) of
Kernbench:
Elapsed System User CPU
elm3b67 2.6.12-rc1 49.02 147.91 1105.49 2556.00
elm3b67 mbligh 52.30 142.24 1105.83 2385.33
That doesn't seem like an improvement ;-) (last run is just adding above patch)
I'll try to get you results on a couple more machines, but I'm fighting
with the test harness to get it to behave (plus I now have to rerun all
the tests with CONFIG_BROKEN turned on to get CONFIG_SCSI_QLOGIC_ISP to
work).
M.