From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS cpu scheduler v0.304 stable release
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:44:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1255761858.12209.64.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200910162158.58054.kernel@kolivas.org>
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 21:58 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> A lot of people have been wanting to know when BFS, the Brain Fuck Scheduler
> had reached a stable version, so as requested, I'm announcing the first known
> stable release of the Brain Fuck Scheduler, version 0.304. The goals and
> purpose of this patch should be well known by now. It is aimed at end users
> and for comparison purposes, though constructive developer input is welcome.
I've taken BFS out for a few spins while looking into BFS vs CFS latency
reports, and noticed a couple problems I'll share, comparison testing
has been healthy for CFS, so maybe BFS can profit as well. Below are
some bfs304 vs my working tree numbers from a run this morning, looking
to see if some issues seen in earlier releases were still present.
Comments on noted issues:
It looks like there may be some affinity troubles, and there definitely
seems to be a fairness bug still lurking. No idea what's up with that,
but see data below, it's pretty nasty. Any sleepy load competing with a
pure hog seems to be troublesome.
The pgsql+oltp test data is very interesting to me, pgsql+oltp hates
preemption with a passion, because of it's USERLAND spinlocks. Preempt
the lock holder, and watch the fun. Your preemption model suits it very
well at the low end, and does pretty well all the way though. Really
interesting to me is the difference in 1 and 2 client throughput, why
I'm including these.
msql+oltp and tbench look like they're griping about affinity to me, but
I haven't instrumented anything, so can't be sure. mysql+oltp I know is
a wakeup preemption and is very affinity sensitive. Too little wakeup
preemption, it suffers, any load balancing, it suffers.
What vmark is so upset about, I have no idea. I know it's very affinity
sensitive, and hates wakeup preemption passionately.
Numbers:
vmark
tip 108841 messages per second
tip++ 116260 messages per second
31.bfs304 28279 messages per second
tbench 8
tip 938.421 MB/sec 8 procs
tip++ 952.302 MB/sec 8 procs
31.bfs304 709.121 MB/sec 8 procs
mysql+oltp
clients 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256
tip 9999.36 18493.54 34652.91 34253.13 32057.64 30297.43 28300.96 25450.14 20675.99
tip++ 10041.16 18531.16 34934.22 34192.65 32829.65 32010.55 30341.31 27340.65 22724.87
31.bfs304 9459.85 14952.44 32209.07 29724.03 28608.02 27051.10 24851.44 21223.15 15809.46
pgsql+oltp
clients 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256
tip 13577.63 26510.67 51871.05 51374.62 50190.69 45494.64 37173.83 27767.09 22795.23
tip++ 13685.69 26693.42 52056.45 51733.30 50854.75 49790.95 48972.02 47517.34 44999.22
31.bfs304 15467.03 21126.57 52673.76 50972.41 49652.54 46015.73 44567.18 40419.90 33276.67
fairness bug in 31.bfs304?
prep:
set CPU governor to performance first, as in all benchmarking.
taskset -c 0 pert (100% CPU hog TSC perturbation measurement proggy)
taskset -p 0x1 `pidof Xorg`
perf stat taskset -c 0 konsole -e exit
31.bfs304 2.073724549 seconds time elapsed
tip++ 0.989323860 seconds time elapsed
note: amarok pins itself to CPU0, and is set up to use mysql database.
prep: cache warmup run.
perf stat amarokapp (quit after 12000 song mp3 collection is loaded)
31.bfs304 136.418518486 seconds time elapsed
tip++ 19.439268066 seconds time elapsed
prep: restart amarok, wait for load, start playing
perf stat taskset -c 0 mplayer -nosound 3DMark2000.mkv (exact 6 minute movie)
31.bfs304 432.712500554 seconds time elapsed
tip++ 363.622519583 seconds time elapsed
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-17 6:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-16 10:58 BFS cpu scheduler v0.304 stable release Con Kolivas
2009-10-16 22:53 ` Chris Friesen
2009-10-17 6:44 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1255761858.12209.64.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox