From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965539AbXDVINC (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:13:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965549AbXDVINB (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:13:01 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.93.40.71]:57749 "EHLO holomorphy.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965539AbXDVINA (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:13:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:07:08 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Gene Heskett Cc: Willy Tarreau , Ingo Molnar , Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , Mike Galbraith , Arjan van de Ven , Peter Williams , Thomas Gleixner , caglar@pardus.org.tr Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44 Message-ID: <20070422080708.GI2986@holomorphy.com> References: <20070420140457.GA14017@elte.hu> <20070421121235.GA2044@1wt.eu> <200704211417.03598.gene.heskett@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704211417.03598.gene.heskett@gmail.com> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:17:02PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > CFS-v4 is quite smooth in terms of the users experience but after prolonged > observations approaching 24 hours, it appears to choke the cpu hog off a bit > even when the system has nothing else to do. My amanda runs went from 1 to > 1.5 hours depending on how much time it took gzip to handle the amount of > data tar handed it, up to about 165m & change, or nearly 3 hours pretty > consistently over 5 runs. Welcome to infinite history. I'm not surprised, apart from the time scale of anomalies being much larger than I anticipated. On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:17:02PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > sd-0.44 so far seems to be handling the same load (theres a backup running > right now) fairly well also, and possibly theres a bit more snap to the > system now. A switch to screen 1 from this screen 8, and the loading of that > screen image, which is the Cassini shot of saturn from the backside, the one > showing that teeny dot to the left of Saturn that is actually us, took 10 > seconds with the stock 2.6.21-rc7, 3 seconds with the best of Ingo's patches, > and now with Con's latest, is 1 second flat. Another screen however is 4 > seconds, so maybe that first scren had been looked at since I rebooted. > However, amanda is still getting estimates so gzip hasn't put a tiewrap > around the kernels neck just yet. Not sure what you mean by gzip putting a tiewrap around the kernel's neck. Could you clarify? On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:17:02PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > Some minutes later, gzip is smunching /usr/src, and the machine doesn't even > know its running as sd-0.44 isn't giving gzip more than 75% to gzip, and > probably averaging less than 50%. And it scared me a bit as it started out at > not over 5% for the first minute or so. Running in the 70's now according to > gkrellm, with an occasional blip to 95%. And the machine generally feels > good. I wonder what's behind that sort of initial and steady-state behavior. On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:17:02PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > I had previously given CFS-v4 a 95 score but that was before I saw > the general slowdown, and I believe my first impression of this one > is also a 95. This on a scale of the best one of the earlier CFS > patches being 100, and stock 2.6.21-rc7 gets a 0.0. This scheduler > seems to be giving gzip ever more cpu as time progresses, and the cpu > is warming up quite nicely, from about 132F idling to 149.9F now. > And my keyboard is still alive and well. > Generally speaking, Con, I believe this one is also a keeper. And we'll see > how long a backup run takes. Pardon my saying so but you appear to be describing anomalous behavior in terms of "scheduler warmups."