From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ck list <ck@vds.kolivas.org>
Subject: Re: RSDL v0.30 cpu scheduler for mainline kernels
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:05:13 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200703151705.13761.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070315023102.GL30596@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
On Thursday 15 March 2007 13:31, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Con,
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:58:11AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > There are updated patches for 2.6.20, 2.6.20.2, 2.6.21-rc3 and
> > 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 to bring RSDL up to version 0.30 for download here:
>
> I tried this on a Core 2 Quad cpu system(system has 4 cores on a single
> package). When I run SPECjbb2000 with number of threads varying from 1-8,
> I see ~4.5% perf regression with RSDL (compared to native 2.6.21-rc3) in
> the 8 threads case. This I think, is coming from increased number of
> context switches, when we have more than one thread(at same user priority)
> on the same logical cpu.
>
> Just to see the % increase in number of context switches, I ran 8 infinite
> loops (simple while(1); 's) and with 2.6.21-rc3 I see ~70 context switches
> every second, whereas with RSDL I see ~530 context switches.
Thanks. If it's just that then scaling rr interval with cpus somewhat would
help. If you could, the following patch just to test might confirm that.
---
kernel/sched.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2.orig/kernel/sched.c 2007-03-15 17:03:17.000000000 +1100
+++ linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2/kernel/sched.c 2007-03-15 17:03:30.000000000 +1100
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ unsigned long long __attribute__((weak))
* This is the time all tasks within the same priority round robin.
* Set to a minimum of 6ms.
*/
-#define RR_INTERVAL ((6 * HZ / 1001) + 1)
+#define RR_INTERVAL ((12 * HZ / 1001) + 1)
#define DEF_TIMESLICE (RR_INTERVAL * 20)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
--
-ck
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-15 5:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-11 23:58 RSDL v0.30 cpu scheduler for mainline kernels Con Kolivas
2007-03-12 23:46 ` David Miller
2007-03-13 3:05 ` Con Kolivas
2007-03-13 4:32 ` Willy Tarreau
2007-03-13 5:03 ` [ck] " Felipe Alfaro Solana
2007-03-13 5:29 ` David Miller
2007-03-13 13:10 ` [ck] " michael chang
2007-03-13 15:35 ` [ck] " Ash Milsted
2007-03-13 15:46 ` Con Kolivas
2007-03-13 15:53 ` Lee Revell
2007-03-13 17:45 ` Chris Friesen
2007-03-13 20:02 ` Lee Revell
2007-03-14 9:47 ` Ash Milsted
2007-03-15 2:31 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2007-03-15 6:05 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2007-03-15 17:46 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2007-03-15 18:58 ` Ray Lee
2007-03-15 21:11 ` Con Kolivas
2007-03-15 21:12 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2007-03-17 14:27 ` Szonyi Calin
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=200703151705.13761.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=ck@vds.kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.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