Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:47:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:47:46 -0400 Received: from 2-225.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br ([200.193.160.225]:18887 "EHLO 2-225.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:47:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:52:35 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com To: Con Kolivas cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] fork_load module tested for contest In-Reply-To: <1032964936.3d91cb48b1cca@kolivas.net> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1186 Lines: 34 On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Con Kolivas wrote: > I've been trialling a new load module for the contest benchmark > (http://contest.kolivas.net) which simply forks a process that does > nothing, waits for it to die, then repeats. Here are the results I have > obtained so far: > fork_load: > Kernel Time CPU Ratio > 2.4.19 100.05 69% 1.37 > 2.4.19-ck7 74.65 95% 1.02 > 2.5.38 77.35 95% 1.06 > 2.5.38-mm2 76.99 95% 1.06 > > ck7 uses O1, preempt, low latency Looks like the O(1) scheduler has a problem, then. The continuous fork() loop should get 20% of the CPU, not 5%. regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/