From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965336AbXDPKWs (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:22:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030325AbXDPKWs (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:22:48 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:56800 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965336AbXDPKWr (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:22:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:22:23 +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, Greg KH Subject: Re: [TEST RESULT]massive_intr.c -- cfs/vanilla/sd-0.40 Message-ID: <20070416102219.GA3950@elte.hu> References: <1176540546.2702.15.camel@bluegenie> <20070414120220.GA2346@elte.hu> <877iscsp1x.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> <20070416084724.GA10912@elte.hu> <87647wsk2o.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87647wsk2o.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: > You are welcome. I can use larger machine by chance, and also tested > there just now. > > Test environment > ================ > > - kernel: 2.6.21-rc6-CFS > - run time: 300 secs > - # of CPU: 12 > - # of processes: 200 or 2400 > > Result > =================================== > > +----------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+ > | # of | # of | avg | max | min | stdev | > | CPUs | processes | | | | | > +----------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+ > | | 200 | 2250 | 2348 | 2204 | 64 | > | 12(ia64) +-----------+-------+------+------+--------+ > | | 2400 | 187.5 | 197 | 176 | 4.3 | > +----------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+ > > Looks like good too. yeah. The spread between min and max is 11%, the spread between stddev and avg is 2.2%, which is quite OK for so many tasks. > BTW, I've a question. Actually this problem is fixed on CFS and DS. > However they are mostly written from scratch and doeesn't suitable for > stable version, for example 2.6.20.X. Can your other patch be > compromise for stable version? Although that patch is not perfect, but > I think it's preferable to leave it alone. i'm afraid that small patch is not suitable for a general purpose Linux release (it hits interactivity way too much) - that's what this years-long struggle was about. But you could apply it to a special server-centric kernel. Ingo