Re: Ten percent test

Ingo Molnar
2007-04-07T18:08:34Z

* Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com> wrote:

> To be expected, there are after all, only so many cpu cycles to go
> around. Here I sit, running 2.6.21-rc6 ATM, and since there is not an
> SD patch that applies cleanly to rc6, I am back to typing half or more
> of a sentence blind while I answer a posting such as this because of x
> starvation while kmail is sorting incoming stuff.

it would be really nice to analyze this. Does the latest -rt patch boot
on your box so that we could trace this regression? (I can send you a
standalone tracing patch if it doesnt.) IIRC you reported that one of
the early patches from Mike made your system behave good (but still not
as good as SD) - it would be nice to try a later patch too.

basically, the current unfairness in the scheduler should be solved, one
way or another. Good testcases were posted and there's progress.

> (who the hell runs a 'make -j 200' or 50 while(1)'s in the real world?

not many - and i dont think Mike tested any of these - Mike tested
pretty low make -j values (Mike, can you confirm?).

(I personally routinely run 'make -j 200' build jobs on my box [because
it's the central server of a build cluster and high parallelism is
needed to overcome network latencies], but i'm pretty special in that
regard and i didnt use that workload as a test against any of these
schedulers.)

Ingo