Message-Id: <200403291021.i2TAKxx21370@owlet.beaverton.ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, jun.nakajima@intel.com,
       piggin@cyberone.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org,
       kernel@kolivas.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, anton@samba.org,
       lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, mbligh@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:45:31 +0200."
             <20040329084531.GB29458@wotan.suse.de> 
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 02:20:58 -0800
From: Rick Lindsley <ricklind@us.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 920
Lines: 19

I've got a web page up now on my home machine which shows data from
schedstats across the various flavors of 2.6.4 and 2.6.5-rc2 under
load from kernbench, SPECjbb, and SPECdet.

    http://eaglet.rain.com/rick/linux/sched-domain/index.html

Two things that stand out are that sched-domains tends to call
load_balance() less frequently when it is idle and more frequently when
it is busy (as compared to the "standard" scheduler.)  Another is that
even though it moves fewer tasks on average, the sched-domains code shows
about half of pull_task()'s work is coming from active_load_balance() ...
and that seems wrong.  Could these be contributing to what you're seeing?

Rick
-
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/