Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965261AbZLQPpq (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:45:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965199AbZLQPpo (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:45:44 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:45535 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965192AbZLQPpn (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:45:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:47:42 +0100 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Kasper Sandberg , Jason Garrett-Glaser , Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , LKML Mailinglist , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS Message-ID: <20091217164742.0c2e5ca1@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20091217120826.GA32125@elte.hu> References: <1261042383.14314.0.camel@localhost> <28f2fcbc0912170242r6d93dfb1j337558a829e21a75@mail.gmail.com> <20091217105316.GB26010@elte.hu> <1261047618.14314.6.camel@localhost> <20091217120826.GA32125@elte.hu> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.3 (GTK+ 2.16.6; i586-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1497 Lines: 34 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:08:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > not to mention that bfs does this whilst not loosing interactivity, > > something which cfs certainly cannot boast. > > What kind of latencies are those? Arent they just compiz induced due > to different weighting of workloads in BFS and in the upstream > scheduler? Would you be willing to help us out pinning them down? > > To move the discussion to the numeric front please send the 'perf > sched latency' output of an affected workload. CFS in .32 and before has one known, and now fixed latency issue. In .32, wake_up() (which is most causes for inter thread communication and lots of others) was trying to keep the waker and wakee on the same logical cpu at pretty much all cost. In .33-git, Mike fixed this to, if there's a free logical cpu sibling, or on a multicore cpu, another core which shares the cache, to just schedule the new task on that free cpu rather than on the current, guaranteed busy, cpu. This change helps latency a lot, and as a result, performance for various latency sensitive workloads... -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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/