From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759129AbXJMJWS (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:22:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753337AbXJMJWG (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:22:06 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:43691 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753122AbXJMJWF (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:22:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: high-res preemption tick From: Peter Zijlstra To: Mike Galbraith Cc: linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner In-Reply-To: <1192265717.27435.44.camel@twins> References: <1192222309.5897.3.camel@lappy> <1192259938.7369.4.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <1192265717.27435.44.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:17:52 +0200 Message-Id: <1192267072.5897.5.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 10:55 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 09:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 22:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Subject: sched: high-res preemption tick > > > > > > Use HR-timers (when available) to deliver an accurate preemption tick. > > > > This patch further reduced iperf context switching, and boosted > > throughput. > > > > iperf -c localhost -P 10 -t 300 > > > > Previously reported numbers > > > > 2.6.23-smp > > [SUM] 0.0-300.0 sec 153 GBytes 4.39 Gbits/sec > > [SUM] 0.0-300.1 sec 148 GBytes 4.23 Gbits/sec > > [SUM] 0.0-300.0 sec 152 GBytes 4.36 Gbits/sec > > > > 2.6.23-smp-d (sched-devel) > > [SUM] 0.0-300.0 sec 173 GBytes 4.96 Gbits/sec > > [SUM] 0.0-300.1 sec 173 GBytes 4.96 Gbits/sec > > [SUM] 0.0-300.0 sec 172 GBytes 4.93 Gbits/sec > > > > Numbers from fresh pull today > > > > 2.6.23-smp-d-hrt > > (re-enable PREEMPT_RESTRICT) > > Ah, but HRTICK is not compatible with PREEMPT_RESTRICT, it will be > similar to !WAKEUP_PREEMPT. (I do plan to fix that eventually, just need to do it) Also, this seems to suggest iperf would like SCHED_BATCH. > > [SUM] 0.0-300.1 sec 181 GBytes 5.19 Gbits/sec > > [SUM] 0.0-300.0 sec 182 GBytes 5.22 Gbits/sec > > [SUM] 0.0-300.1 sec 182 GBytes 5.22 Gbits/sec > > > > 2.6.23-smp-d > > [SUM] 0.0-300.1 sec 174 GBytes 4.97 Gbits/sec > > [SUM] 0.0-300.1 sec 173 GBytes 4.95 Gbits/sec > > [SUM] 0.0-300.1 sec 173 GBytes 4.96 Gbits/sec > > > >