Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760068AbXJLMOw (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:14:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753856AbXJLMOn (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:14:43 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:38313 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753839AbXJLMOm (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:14:42 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.23 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:21:59 -0400 Message-ID: <470F66E7.7010509@tmr.com> References: <1191996740.8694.7.camel@entropy> <20071010101452.GA25433@elte.hu> <200710111916.23633.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20071012054615.GA22256@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org Cc: Nick Piggin , Nicholas Miell , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-70-109-100-63.alb.east.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 In-Reply-To: <20071012054615.GA22256@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1702 Lines: 36 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Nick Piggin wrote: > >> ;) I think you snipped the important bit: >> >> "the peak is terrible but it has virtually no dropoff and performs >> better under load than the default 2.6.21 scheduler." (verbatim) > > hm, i understood that peak remark to be in reference to FreeBSD's > scheduler (which the FreeBSD guys are primarily interested in > obviously), not v2.6.21 - but i could be wrong. > > In any case, there is indeed a regression with sysbench and a low number > of threads, and it's being fixed. The peak got improved visibly in > sched-devel: > > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/misc/sysbench-sched-devel.jpg > > but there is still some peak regression left, i'm testing a patch for > that. > There's one important bit missing from that graph, the 2.6.23-SCHED_BATCH values. Without that we can't tell how much improvement is from sched-devel and how much from SCHED_BATCH. Clearly 2.6.23 is better than 2.6.22.any in this test, the locking issues seem to dominate that difference to the point that nothing else would be informative. This weekend I have to do some building of kernels for various machines, so I intend to run some builds SCHED_BATCH and some will just run. If I find anything interesting I'll report. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - 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/