Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755329Ab2FNDNw (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:13:52 -0400 Received: from defout.telus.net ([204.209.205.33]:46575 "EHLO defout.telus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755053Ab2FNDNu (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:13:50 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=P+ZEdO0D3Q9E7TO7FitHuHm52J/mDxFTm8B8+6MwKwU= c=1 sm=2 a=d5aLr75umSEA:10 a=LGgl8L9ij00A:10 a=ZPSk82zQDygA:10 a=h1iltqZIKrZIMbT6DgAA:9 a=UAVRJdkkkM0A:10 X-Telus-Outbound-IP: 209.121.28.192 From: "Doug Smythies" To: "'Peter Zijlstra'" Cc: "'Charles Wang'" , , "'Ingo Molnar'" , "'Charles Wang'" , "'Tao Ma'" , =?iso-2022-jp?B?JxskQjReQmMbKEIn?= , "Doug Smythies" References: <1339239295-18591-1-git-send-email-muming.wq@taobao.com> <1339429374.30462.54.camel@twins> <4FD70D12.5030404@gmail.com> <1339494970.31548.66.camel@twins> <004701cd4929$200d4600$6027d200$@net> <1339575411.31548.107.camel@twins> <000601cd4979$e1fda7a0$a5f8f6e0$@net> <1339624653.8980.76.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1339624653.8980.76.camel@twins> Subject: RE: [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:13:29 -0700 Message-ID: <000101cd49db$b0d92a20$128b7e60$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac1Jr5kUoez/natpS7uE6RUaoyRe1wAKhZSQ Content-Language: en-ca Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1423 Lines: 44 >> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 08:33 -0700, Doug Smythies wrote: > On 2012.06.13 14:58 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> All that being said, what I typically do with a new code test is: >> >> . select a known, previous bad operating point. For example 2 >> processes, actual load average 0.30 (0.15 for each process) currently >> reporting ~1.5. > OK, I'll try and apply this. Waiting 63 hours for feedback on patches is > something I'm not patient enough for. > Would this be: > ./waiter 2 900 230608 10000 Actually it would be: ./waiter 2 900 345912 9444 At least on my computer, with the CPUs locked into powersave mode (lowest clock rate). It might be different on your computer as the exact numbers are computer dependent. I will change the script generating program to add comment lines as to the expected execution scenario, as I have troubles also looking up command lines. > I haven't even bothered reading the waiter proglet yet, but I did notice > the 'help' provided when started without arguments doesn't seem to > actually match what load_180 does. Right, sorry. I think you will find the newer version (from the "wang" experiment write up) is O.K. -- 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/