Re: Linux 2.6.23

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> ;) I think you snipped the important bit:
>>
>> "the peak is terrible but it has virtually no dropoff and performs 
>> better under load than the default 2.6.21 scheduler." (verbatim)
> 
> hm, i understood that peak remark to be in reference to FreeBSD's 
> scheduler (which the FreeBSD guys are primarily interested in 
> obviously), not v2.6.21 - but i could be wrong.
> 
> In any case, there is indeed a regression with sysbench and a low number 
> of threads, and it's being fixed. The peak got improved visibly in 
> sched-devel:
> 
>   http://people.redhat.com/mingo/misc/sysbench-sched-devel.jpg
> 
> but there is still some peak regression left, i'm testing a patch for 
> that.
> 
There's one important bit missing from that graph, the 
2.6.23-SCHED_BATCH values. Without that we can't tell how much 
improvement is from sched-devel and how much from SCHED_BATCH. Clearly 
2.6.23 is better than 2.6.22.any in this test, the locking issues seem 
to dominate that difference to the point that nothing else would be 
informative.

This weekend I have to do some building of kernels for various machines, 
so I intend to run some builds SCHED_BATCH and some will just run. If I 
find anything interesting I'll report.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot