Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753262AbZIGL5u (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2009 07:57:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753054AbZIGL5t (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2009 07:57:49 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:44948 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752691AbZIGL5s (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2009 07:57:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:57:51 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements Message-ID: <20090907115750.GW18599@kernel.dk> References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> <20090907094953.GP18599@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090907094953.GP18599@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 772 Lines: 20 On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Jens Axboe wrote: > Scheduler Runtime Max lat Avg lat Std dev > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > CFS 100 951 462 267 > CFS-x2 100 983 484 308 > BFS > BFS-x2 Those numbers are buggy, btw, it's not nearly as bad. But responsiveness under compile load IS bad though, the test app just didn't quantify it correctly. I'll see if I can get it working properly. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/