Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752157AbZIHSPZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:15:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752107AbZIHSPY (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:15:24 -0400 Received: from mail-in-05.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.45]:48033 "EHLO mail-in-05.arcor-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752022AbZIHSPX (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:15:23 -0400 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 mail-in-02.arcor-online.net 202223FE166 Message-ID: <4AA69F3A.4090600@arcor.de> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:15:22 +0300 From: Nikos Chantziaras Organization: Lucas Barks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090826 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederic Weisbecker CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , Ingo Molnar , Con Kolivas Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> <20090907110146.GB6393@nowhere> In-Reply-To: <20090907110146.GB6393@nowhere> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2413 Lines: 61 On 09/07/2009 02:01 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 06:38:36AM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> Unfortunately, I can't come up with any way to somehow benchmark all of >> this. There's no benchmark for "fluidity" and "responsiveness". Running >> the Doom 3 benchmark, or any other benchmark, doesn't say anything about >> responsiveness, it only measures how many frames were calculated in a >> specific period of time. How "stable" (with no stalls) those frames were >> making it to the screen is not measurable. > > > That looks eventually benchmarkable. This is about latency. > For example, you could try to run high load tasks in the > background and then launch a task that wakes up in middle/large > periods to do something. You could measure the time it takes to wake > it up to perform what it wants. > > We have some events tracing infrastructure in the kernel that can > snapshot the wake up and sched switch events. > > Having CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING=y should be sufficient for that. > > You just need to mount a debugfs point, say in /debug. > > Then you can activate these sched events by doing: > > echo 0> /debug/tracing/tracing_on > echo 1> /debug/tracing/events/sched/sched_switch/enable > echo 1> /debug/tracing/events/sched/sched_wake_up/enable > > #Launch your tasks > > echo 1> /debug/tracing/tracing_on > > #Wait for some time > > echo 0> /debug/tracing/tracing_off > > That will require some parsing of the result in /debug/tracing/trace > to get the delays between wake_up events and switch in events > for the task that periodically wakes up and then produce some > statistics such as the average or the maximum latency. > > That's a bit of a rough approach to measure such latencies but that > should work. I've tried this with 2.6.31-rc9 while running mplayer and alt+tabbing repeatedly to the point where mplayer starts to stall and drop frames. This produced a 4.1MB trace file (132k bzip2'ed): http://foss.math.aegean.gr/~realnc/kernel/trace1.bz2 Uncompressed for online viewing: http://foss.math.aegean.gr/~realnc/kernel/trace1 I must admit that I don't know what it is I'm looking at :P -- 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/