Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752930AbXINHBA (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:01:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750874AbXINHAl (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:00:41 -0400 Received: from smtpoutm.mac.com ([17.148.16.75]:61574 "EHLO smtpoutm.mac.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750758AbXINHAj (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:00:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <6b8cef970709131847r770ad338tcfbbad90377a4115@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070911200459.GA6974@elte.hu> <6b8cef970709111816l2e421bf3s55e63274e87fd5e1@mail.gmail.com> <6b8cef970709130142h7be591f7ja5ffd8976faef09c@mail.gmail.com> <20070913090655.GA28505@elte.hu> <6b8cef970709130224t2f8d28d4mdfbf22ba10b42497@mail.gmail.com> <20070913093137.GA31923@elte.hu> <6b8cef970709130236o48e4d923ofe4ad862c749f2da@mail.gmail.com> <20070913114828.GA28339@elte.hu> <6b8cef970709131847r770ad338tcfbbad90377a4115@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6B4EDD11-4EE4-48DA-8544-39DDB43E222A@mac.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: [announce] CFS-devel, performance improvements Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:59:58 -0400 To: Rob Hussey X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1852 Lines: 41 On Sep 13, 2007, at 21:47:25, Rob Hussey wrote: > On 9/13/07, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> are you sure this is happening with the latest iteration of the >> patch too? (with the combo-3.patch?) You can pick it up from here: >> >> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/devel/sched-cfs- >> v2.6.23-rc6-v21-combo-3.patch > > I managed to work it all out (it was my fault after all), and I've now > made the changes you suggested to my .configs for 2.6.23-rc1 and > 2.6.23-rc6. I've done the benchmarks all over, including tests with > the task bound to a single core. Without further ado, the numbers I > promised: > > [...] > > I've made graphs like last time: > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/lat_ctx_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/hackbench_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/pipe-test_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/BOUND_lat_ctx_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/BOUND_hackbench_benchmark.png > http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/BOUND_pipe-test_benchmark.png Well looking at these graphs (and the fixed one from your second email), it sure looks a lot like CFS is doing at *least* as well as the old scheduler in every single test, and doing much better in most of them (in addition it's much more consistent between runs). This seems to jive with all the other benchmarks and overall empirical testing that everyone has been doing. Overall I have to say a job well done for Ingo, Peter, Con, and all the other major contributors to this impressive endeavor. Cheers, Kyle Moffett - 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/