Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752774AbZIJQ0Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:26:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752048AbZIJQ0P (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:26:15 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:52631 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751150AbZIJQ0P (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:26:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:26:11 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Bret Towe Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Nikos Chantziaras , Jens Axboe , Mike Galbraith , Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements Message-ID: <20090910162611.GA31265@elte.hu> References: <1252486344.28645.18.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090909091009.GR18599@kernel.dk> <20090909115429.GY18599@kernel.dk> <20090909122006.GA18599@kernel.dk> <20090909180404.GA11027@elte.hu> <4AA80C1E.2080901@arcor.de> <20090910060824.GF1335@elte.hu> <1252598709.7360.0.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1323 Lines: 32 * Bret Towe wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 09:02 -0700, Bret Towe wrote: > >> > >> thanks to this thread and others I've seen several kernel tunables > >> that can effect how the scheduler performs/acts > >> but what I don't see after a bit of looking is where all these are > >> documented > >> perhaps thats also part of the reason there are unhappy people with > >> the current code in the kernel just because they don't know how > >> to tune it for their workload > > > > The thing is, ideally they should not need to poke at these. > > These knobs are under CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG, and that is exactly > > what they are for. > > even then I would think they should be documented so people can > find out what item is hurting their workload so they can better > report the bug no? Would be happy to apply such documentation patches. You could also help start adding a 'scheduler performance' wiki portion to perf.wiki.kernel.org, if you have time for that. 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/