From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758702AbZIGCFY (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Sep 2009 22:05:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758559AbZIGCFX (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Sep 2009 22:05:23 -0400 Received: from Cpsmtpm-eml109.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.13]:59951 "EHLO CPSMTPM-EML109.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758556AbZIGCFX (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Sep 2009 22:05:23 -0400 From: Frans Pop To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 04:05:22 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: kernel@kolivas.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, efault@gmx.de References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> In-reply-To: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200909070405.23936.elendil@planet.nl> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2009 02:05:24.0815 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9A6A5F0:01CA2F5F] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > So the testbox i picked fits into the upper portion of what i > consider a sane range of systems to tune for - and should still fit > into BFS's design bracket as well according to your description: > it's a dual quad core system with hyperthreading. Ingo, Nice that you've looked into this. Would it be possible for you to run the same tests on e.g. a dual core and/or a UP system (or maybe just offline some CPUs?)? It would be very interesting to see whether BFS does better in the lower portion of the range, or if the differences you show between the two schedulers are consistent across the range. Cheers, FJP