Message-ID: <4DF954E5.9060704@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:57:09 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; ja; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hu Tao <hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>
CC: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@gmail.com>,
        Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.co>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] CFS Bandwidth Control V6
References: <20110503092846.022272244@google.com> <20110614065807.GA19111@localhost.localdomain> <4DF70DED.2030803@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110615083749.GA14200@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20110615083749.GA14200@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1890
Lines: 47

(2011/06/15 17:37), Hu Tao wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:29:49PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
>> (2011/06/14 15:58), Hu Tao wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've run several tests including hackbench, unixbench, massive-intr
>>> and kernel building. CPU is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3430  @ 2.40GHz,
>>> 4 cores, and 4G memory.
>>>
>>> Most of the time the results differ few, but there are problems:
>>>
>>> 1. unixbench: execl throughout has about 5% drop.
>>> 2. unixbench: process creation has about 5% drop.
>>> 3. massive-intr: when running 200 processes for 5mins, the number
>>>    of loops each process runs differ more than before cfs-bandwidth-v6.
>>>
>>> The results are attached.
>>
>> I know the score of unixbench is not so stable that the problem might
>> be noises ... but the result of massive-intr is interesting.
>> Could you give a try to find which piece (xx/15) in the series cause
>> the problems?
> 
> After more tests, I found massive-intr data is not stable, too. Results
> are attached. The third number in file name means which patchs are
> applied, 0 means no patch applied. plot.sh is easy to generate png
> files.

(Though I don't know what the 16th patch of this series is, anyway)
I see that the results of 15, 15-1 and 15-2 are very different and that
15-2 is similar to without-patch.

One concern is whether this unstable of data is really caused by the
nature of your test (hardware, massive-intr itself and something running
in background etc.) or by a hidden piece in the bandwidth patch set.
Did you see "not stable" data when none of patches is applied?
If not, which patch makes it unstable?


Thanks,
H.Seto

--
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/