From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030581AbXDUKbm (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:31:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030599AbXDUKbm (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:31:42 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:42280 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030581AbXDUKbl (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:31:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:31:29 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Willy Tarreau Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] Message-ID: <20070421103129.GA12621@elte.hu> References: <20070414063254.GB14875@elte.hu> <20070414064334.GA19463@elte.hu> <20070414080833.GL943@1wt.eu> <20070414083625.GM943@1wt.eu> <20070414105338.GB19454@elte.hu> <20070414130101.GA2538@1wt.eu> <20070419090144.GA17100@elte.hu> <20070419125438.GA27584@1wt.eu> <20070419151803.GB30959@elte.hu> <20070419184534.GA29096@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070419184534.GA29096@1wt.eu> 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 * Willy Tarreau wrote: > I hacked it a bit to make it accept two parameters : > -R : time spent burning CPU cycles at each round > -S : time spent getting a rest > > It now advances what it thinks is a second at each iteration, so that > it makes it easy to compare its progress with other instances (there > are seconds, minutes and hours, so it's easy to visually count up to > around 43200). > > The modified code is here : > > http://linux.1wt.eu/sched/orbitclock-0.2bench.tgz > > What is interesting to note is that it's easy to make X work a lot > (99%) by using 0 as the sleeping time, and it's easy to make the > process work a lot by using large values for the running time > associated with very low values (or 0) for the sleep time. > > Ah, and it supports -geometry ;-) > > It could become a useful scheduler benchmark ! i just tried ocbench-0.3, and it is indeed very nice! Would it make sense perhaps to (optionally?) also log some sort of periodic text feedback to stdout, about the quality of scheduling? Maybe even a 'run this many seconds' option plus a summary text output at the end (which would output measured runtime, observed longest/smallest latency and standard deviation of latencies maybe)? That would make it directly usable both as a 'consistency of X app scheduling' visual test and as an easily shareable benchmark with an objective numeric result as well. Ingo