From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965287AbXDPIr6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:47:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965345AbXDPIr6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:47:58 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49739 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965287AbXDPIr5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:47:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:25 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Satoru Takeuchi Cc: surya.prabhakar@wipro.com, kernel@kolivas.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@suse.de, efault@gmx.de, arjan@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, wli@holomorphy.com Subject: Re: [TEST RESULT]massive_intr.c -- cfs/vanilla/sd-0.40 Message-ID: <20070416084724.GA10912@elte.hu> References: <1176540546.2702.15.camel@bluegenie> <20070414120220.GA2346@elte.hu> <877iscsp1x.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877iscsp1x.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > > btw., other schedulers might work better with some more test-time: > > i'd suggest to use 60 seconds (./massive_intr 10 60) [or maybe more, > > using more threads] to see long-term fairness effects. > > I tested CFS with massive_intr. I did long term, many CPUs, and many > processes cases. > > Test environment > ================ > > - kernel: 2.6.21-rc6-CFS > - run time: 300 secs > - # of CPU: 1 or 4 > - # of processes: 200 or 800 > > Result > ====== > > +---------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+ > | # of | # of | avg | max | min | stdev | > | CPUs | processes | (*1) | (*2) | (*3) | (*4) | > +---------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+ > | 1(i386) | | 117.9 | 123 | 115 | 1.2 | > +---------| 200 +-------+------+------+--------+ > | | | 750.2 | 767 | 735 | 10.6 | > | 4(ia64) +-----------+-------+------+------+--------+ > | | 800(*5) | 187.3 | 189 | 186 | 0.8 | > +---------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+ > > *1) average number of loops among all processes > *2) maximum number of loops among all processes > *3) minimum number of loops among all processes > *4) standard deviation > *5) Its # of processes per CPU is equal to first test case. > > Pretty good! CFS seems to be fair in any situation. thanks for testing this! Indeed the min-max values and standard deviation look all pretty healthy. (They in fact seem to be better than the other patch of mine against upstream that you tested, correct?) [ And there's also another nice little detail in your feedback: CFS actually builds, boots and works fine on ia64 too ;-) ] Ingo