From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Luca Zini <luca.zini@gmail.com>,
aagaande@gmail.com, rdelcueto@hotmail.com, mingo@elte.hu,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
Subject: Re: scheduler vs hardware? (was Re: another i7 (linux) bug?)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:10:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1264151457.12530.4.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1264150272.4283.1361.camel@laptop>
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 08:19 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > if I run a cpu intensive process with the lowest priority (19
> > > from man nice) I obtain much better performance that with the
> > > highest priority available (-20 from man nice).
> > >
> > > For example the same file is processed by lame in 8.7 seconds
> > > at the lowest priority, and in 12 seconds at the highest
> > > priority. Before posting a bug I wold like to understand if
> > > this is a problem related to the i7 mobile (my processor is a
> > > i7 Q720).
> > >
> > > As far as I tested on the same laptop series (dell studio 15),
> > > with the same kernel this problem does not exists.
> >
> > So you only see this on the i7. That's odd. Can you try 33-rc5?
> >
> > Posting a reliable reproducer would be nice. It'd also be nice to see
> > what all is running when you see this, and where.
>
> Using a sample from: http://lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php
>
> My laptop does:
>
>
> # time nice -n 19 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
> real 0m3.273s
> user 0m3.217s
> sys 0m0.022s
>
>
> # time nice -n 0 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
> real 0m1.121s
> user 0m1.102s
> sys 0m0.013s
>
>
> # time nice -n -20 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
> real 0m1.112s
> user 0m1.093s
> sys 0m0.018s
>
>
>
> On a Nehalem class server machine it does:
>
>
> # time nice -n 19 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
> real 0m0.932s
> user 0m0.917s
> sys 0m0.005s
>
>
> # time nice -n 0 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
> real 0m0.927s
> user 0m0.922s
> sys 0m0.003s
>
>
> # time nice -n -20 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
> real 0m0.919s
> user 0m0.914s
> sys 0m0.005s
Weird. Here there is zip squat difference, as expected with 1 thread.
time nice -n 19 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
real 0m0.912s
user 0m0.908s
sys 0m0.000s
time nice -n 0 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
real 0m0.912s
user 0m0.904s
sys 0m0.004s
time nice -n -20 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
real 0m0.912s
user 0m0.904s
sys 0m0.004s
(bah, who needs a nehalem;)
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-22 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <201001211258.23499.luca.zini@gmail.com>
2010-01-21 21:54 ` scheduler vs hardware? (was Re: another i7 (linux) bug?) Alex Chiang
2010-01-22 7:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-01-22 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-22 9:10 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2010-01-22 9:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-01-22 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-22 11:22 ` Luca Zini
2010-01-22 15:58 ` Chris Friesen
2010-01-23 9:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-01-22 20:15 ` Luca Zini
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=1264151457.12530.4.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=aagaande@gmail.com \
--cc=achiang@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.zini@gmail.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdelcueto@hotmail.com \
/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