From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:17:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:17:58 -0400 Received: from jalon.able.es ([212.97.163.2]:59582 "EHLO jalon.able.es") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:17:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 01:17:51 +0200 From: "J.A. Magallon" To: Gerrit Huizenga Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler gives big boost to tbench 192 Message-ID: <20020502231751.GA2003@werewolf.able.es> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Balsa 1.3.5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2002.05.03 Gerrit Huizenga wrote: >In message <20020502173656.A26986@rushmore>, > : rwhron@earthlink.net writes: >> On an OSDL 4 way x86 box the O(1) scheduler effect >> becomes obvious as the run queue gets large. >> >> 2.4.19-pre7-ac2 and 2.4.19-pre7-jam6 have the O(1) scheduler. >> >> At 192 processes, O(1) shows about 340% improvement in throughput. >> The dyn-sched in -aa appears to be somewhat improved over the >> standard scheduler. >> >> Numbers are in MB/second. >> > >If you are bored, you might compare this to the MQ scheduler >at http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/lse/2.4.14.mq-sched > >Also, I think rml did a backport of the 2.5.X version of O(1); >I'm not sure if htat is in -ac or -jam as yet. > -jam6 is sched-O1-rml-2 (the backport). >Rumor is that on some workloads MQ it outperforms O(1), but it >may be that the latest (post K3?) O(1) is catching up? > -- J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you... mailto:jamagallon@able.es Mandrake Linux release 8.3 (Cooker) for i586 Linux werewolf 2.4.19-pre7-jam9 #2 SMP mié may 1 12:09:38 CEST 2002 i686