Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262942AbTIHW15 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:27:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263689AbTIHW14 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:27:56 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:35481 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262942AbTIHW1q (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:27:46 -0400 Message-ID: <3F5D023A.5090405@austin.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 17:27:06 -0500 From: Steven Pratt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Minor scheduler fix to get rid of skipping in xmms Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3258 Lines: 74 Andrew Morton wrote: >That is not clear at this time. We do know that the reaim regression was >introduced by sched-2.6.0-test2-mm2-A3, but we don't know why. Certainly >that patch did not introduce the problem which Andrew's patch fixed. And >we have theorised that Andrew's patch brought back the reaim throughput. >And we have extrapolated those observations to possible improvements in >volanomark throughput. > >It's all foggy and I'd like to see a clean rerun of specjbb and volanomark >by Mark Peloquin and co, confirming that -mm6 is performing OK. > > For specjbb things are looking good from a throughput point of view. 2.6.0-test4 2.6.0-test4-mm6 # of WHs OPs/sec OPs/sec %diff diff tolerance ---------- ------------ ------------ -------- ------------ ------------ 1 9783.46 10093.09 3.16 309.63 293.50 * 4 33783.93 35763.79 5.86 1979.86 1013.52 * 7 54401.52 54288.06 -0.21 -113.46 1632.05 10 56861.59 56445.20 -0.73 -416.39 1705.85 13 56024.86 55720.23 -0.54 -304.63 1680.75 16 43874.77 48994.63 11.67 5119.86 1316.24 * 19 32658.83 31248.04 -4.32 -1410.79 979.76 * But to get these numbers we are using much more CPU. I'll leave it to others to decide if this is good or not. CPU IDLE TIME 2.6.0-test4 2.6.0-test4-mm6 # of WHs %CPU %CPU %diff diff tolerance ---------- ------------ ------------ -------- ------------ ------------ 1 87.30 87.31 0.01 0.01 3.62 4 49.53 49.51 -0.04 -0.02 2.49 7 12.40 12.32 -0.65 -0.08 1.37 10 0.36 0.40 11.11 0.04 1.01 13 1.20 0.62 -48.33 -0.58 1.04 16 15.17 2.79 -81.61 -12.38 1.46 * 19 30.66 5.29 -82.75 -25.37 1.92 * Volanomark, on the other hand is still off by quite a bit from test4 stock Results:Throughput tolerance = 0.00 + 3.00% of 2.6.0-test4 2.6.0-test4 2.6.0-test4-mm6 Msgs/sec Msgs/sec %diff diff tolerance ---------- ------------ ------------ -------- ------------ ------------ 1 40757 37223 -8.67 -3534.00 1222.71 * > >Also, I'm concerned that sched-2.6.0-test2-mm2-A3 caused slowdowns and >Andrew's patch caused speedups and they just cancelled out. Let's get >Andrew's patch into Linus's tree and see if it speeds things up. If it >does, we probably still have a problem. > If thre is any particular patch/tree combination you would like me to try out, please let me know and I will see if I can get the results for you. Steve - 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/