Re: [TEST RESULT]massive_intr.c -- cfs/vanilla/sd-0.40

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> > btw., other schedulers might work better with some more test-time: 
> > i'd suggest to use 60 seconds (./massive_intr 10 60) [or maybe more, 
> > using more threads] to see long-term fairness effects.
> 
> I tested CFS with massive_intr. I did long term, many CPUs, and many 
> processes cases.
> 
> Test environment
> ================
> 
>  - kernel:         2.6.21-rc6-CFS
>  - run time:       300 secs
>  - # of CPU:       1 or 4
>  - # of processes: 200 or 800
> 
> Result
> ======
> 
>   +---------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
>   |   # of  |   # of    | avg   | max  | min  |  stdev |
>   |   CPUs  | processes | (*1)  | (*2) | (*3) |  (*4)  |
>   +---------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
>   | 1(i386) |           | 117.9 |  123 |  115 |    1.2 |
>   +---------|       200 +-------+------+------+--------+
>   |         |           | 750.2 |  767 |  735 |   10.6 |
>   | 4(ia64) +-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
>   |         |   800(*5) | 187.3 |  189 |  186 |    0.8 |
>   +---------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
> 
>   *1) average number of loops among all processes
>   *2) maximum number of loops among all processes
>   *3) minimum number of loops among all processes
>   *4) standard deviation
>   *5) Its # of processes per CPU is equal to first test case.
> 
> Pretty good! CFS seems to be fair in any situation.

thanks for testing this! Indeed the min-max values and standard 
deviation look all pretty healthy. (They in fact seem to be better than 
the other patch of mine against upstream that you tested, correct?)

[ And there's also another nice little detail in your feedback: CFS
  actually builds, boots and works fine on ia64 too ;-) ]

	Ingo