From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753954AbXDVB2O (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:28:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753955AbXDVB2O (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:28:14 -0400 Received: from mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.190]:43325 "EHLO mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753954AbXDVB2N (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:28:13 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Gene Heskett Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:26:49 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Willy Tarreau , Ingo Molnar , 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 References: <20070420140457.GA14017@elte.hu> <20070421121235.GA2044@1wt.eu> <200704211417.03598.gene.heskett@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200704211417.03598.gene.heskett@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704221126.50917.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 22 April 2007 04:17, Gene Heskett wrote: > More first impressions of sd-0.44 vs CFS-v4 Thanks Gene. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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 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. I'm not sure how much weight to put on what you see as the measured cpu usage. I have a feeling it's being wrongly reported in SD currently. Concentrate more on the actual progress and behaviour of things as you've already done. > Generally speaking, Con, I believe this one is also a keeper. And we'll > see how long a backup run takes. Great thanks for feedback. -- -ck