Re: [ck] Re: [REPORT] cfs-v6-rc2 vs sd-0.46 vs 2.6.21-rc7

Con Kolivas
2007-04-26T23:02:40Z

On Thursday 26 April 2007 22:07, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Michael Gerdau <mgd@technosis.de> wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > find below a test comparing
> > 2.6.21-rc7 (mainline)
> > 2.6.21-rc7-sd046
> > 2.6.21-rc7-cfs-v6-rc2(*) (X @ nice 0)
> > 2.6.21-rc7-cfs-v6-rc2(*) (X @ nice -10)
> > running on a dualcore x86_64.
>
> thanks for the testing!

Very interesting indeed but fairly complicated as well.

> as a summary: i think your numbers demonstrate it nicely that the
> shorter 'timeslice length' that both CFS and SD utilizes does not have a
> measurable negative impact on your workload. To measure the total impact
> of 'timeslicing' you might want to try the exact same workload with a
> much higher 'timeslice length' of say 400 msecs, via:
>
> echo 400000000 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns # on CFS
> echo 400 > /proc/sys/kernel/rr_interval # on SD

I thought that the effective "timeslice" on CFS was double the
sched_granularity_ns so wouldn't this make the effective timeslice double
that of what you're setting SD to? Anyway the difference between 400 and
800ms timeslices is unlikely to be significant so I don't mind.

--
-ck