From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: ck@vds.kolivas.org
Cc: Michael Gerdau <mgd@technosis.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>,
Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [ck] [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:06:15 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200704261106.16440.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200704240938.07482.mgd@technosis.de>
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 17:37, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> with cfs-v5 finally booting on my machine I have run my daily
> numbercrunching jobs on both cfs-v5 and sd-0.46, 2.6.21-v7 on
> top of a stock openSUSE 10.2 (X86_64).
Thanks for testing.
> Both cfs and sd showed very similar behavior when monitored in top.
> I'll show more or less representative excerpt from a 10 minutes
> log, delay 3sec.
>
> sd-0.46
> top - 00:14:24 up 1:17, 9 users, load average: 4.79, 4.95, 4.80
> Tasks: 3 total, 3 running, 0 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 99.8%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.2%hi, 0.0%si,
> 0.0%st Mem: 3348628k total, 1648560k used, 1700068k free, 64392k
> buffers Swap: 2097144k total, 0k used, 2097144k free, 828204k
> cached
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 6671 mgd 33 0 95508 22m 3652 R 100 0.7 44:28.11 perl
> 6669 mgd 31 0 95176 22m 3652 R 50 0.7 43:50.02 perl
> 6674
> mgd 31 0 95368 22m 3652 R 50 0.7 47:55.29 perl
>
> cfs-v5
> top - 08:07:50 up 21 min, 9 users, load average: 4.13, 4.16, 3.23
> Tasks: 3 total, 3 running, 0 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 99.5%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si,
> 0.0%st Mem: 3348624k total, 1193500k used, 2155124k free, 32516k
> buffers Swap: 2097144k total, 0k used, 2097144k free, 545568k
> cached
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 6357 mgd 20 0 92024 19m 3652 R 100 0.6 8:54.21 perl
> 6356 mgd 20 0 91652 18m 3652 R 50 0.6 10:35.52 perl
> 6359 mgd 20 0 91700 18m 3652 R 50 0.6 8:47.32 perl
>
> What did surprise me is that cpu utilization had been spread 100/50/50
> (round robin) most of the time. I did expect 66/66/66 or so.
You have 3 tasks and only 2 cpus. The %cpu is the percentage of the cpu the
task is currently on that it is using; it is not the percentage of
the "overall cpu available on the machine". Since you have 3 tasks and 2
cpus, the extra task will always be on one or the other cpu taking half of
the cpu but never on both cpus.
> What I also don't understand is the difference in load average, sd
> constantly had higher values, the above figures are representative
> for the whole log. I don't know which is better though.
There isn't much useful to say about the load average in isolation. It may be
meaningful or not depending on whether it just shows the timing of when the
cpu load is determined, or whether there is more time waiting in runqueues.
Only throughput measurements can really tell them apart.
What is important is that if all three tasks are fully cpu bound and started
at the same time at the same nice level, that they all receive close to the
same total cpu time overall showing some fairness is working as well. This
should be the case no matter how many cpus you have.
--
-ck
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-26 1:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-24 7:37 [REPORT] cfs-v5 vs sd-0.46 Michael Gerdau
2007-04-24 7:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-04-24 8:16 ` Michael Gerdau
2007-04-24 8:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-04-24 8:41 ` Michael Gerdau
2007-04-24 8:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-04-24 9:06 ` Michael Gerdau
2007-04-26 1:06 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2007-04-26 6:10 ` [ck] " Michael Gerdau
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=200704261106.16440.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=ck@vds.kolivas.org \
--cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=gene.heskett@gmail.com \
--cc=jch@pps.jussieu.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgd@technosis.de \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.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