Re: volanoMark regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1

Zhang, Yanmin
2008-05-12T05:45:23Z

On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 13:02 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 10:22 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:33:20AM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > To make the testing faster, I changed some parameters of volanoMark.
> > > The result of 2.6.26-rc1(﻿CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED=y) is about 2%~3% less than the one of
> > > 2.6.25 (﻿CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y).
One more testing:
volanoMark result of 2.6.25 (﻿﻿CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED=y) is about 6%~7% better than the one
of ﻿2.6.26-rc1(﻿CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED=y).

> A quick update:
> With 2.6.26-rc2 (﻿CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y), volanoMa﻿rk result on my 8-core stoakley
> is about 10% worse than the one of 2.6.26-rc1.
>
> >
> > This for confirming my observation. It seems much better than the 50% regression
> > reported earlier (with 2.6.26-rc1 and CONFIG_USER_SCHED).
> >
> > Ideally we should get same results with CONFIG_USER_SCHED also (in
> > 2.6.26-rc1). That needs some work in load balance code. Till that is
> > tackled, IMHO we can retain all the current code by either:
> >
> > 1. Disabling CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED (or better)
> > 2. Enable CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED and CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
> >
> > Ingo/Peter, What's your opinion?