Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:22:59 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>
Cc: Rob Hussey <robjhussey@gmail.com>, efault@gmx.de, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
       zippel@linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
Message-ID: <20070917202259.GA18027@elte.hu>
References: <6b8cef970709170221s4301e896x2ee123a149c05c3a@mail.gmail.com> <200709170712.03679.edt@aei.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200709170712.03679.edt@aei.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1112
Lines: 25


* Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca> wrote:

> Rob,
> 
> I gather this was with the complete -ck patchset?  It would be 
> interesting to see if just SD performed as well.  If it does, CFS 
> needs more work. if not there are other things in -ck that really do 
> improve performance and should be looked into.

yeah. The biggest item in -ck besides SD is swap-prefetch, but that 
shouldnt have an effect in this case. I _think_ that most of the 
measured difference is due to scheduler details though. Right now my 
estimation is that with the patch i sent to Rob, and with latest 
sched-devel.git, CFS should perform as good or better than SD, even in 
these micro-benchmarks. (but i cannot tell what will happen on Rob's 
machine - so i'm keeping an open mind towards any other fixables :-) I'm 
curious about the next round of numbers (if Rob has time to do them).

	Ingo
-
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/