Re: Prcess scheduler Imiprovements in 2.6.0-test9

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

Craig Thomas wrote:

>OSDL has been running peformance tests with hackbench to measure the
>improvment of the scheduler, compared with LInux 2.4.18.  We ran the
>test on our Scalable Test Platform on different system sizes.  The
>results obtained seem to show that the 2.6 scheduler is more
>efficient and allows for greater scalability on larger systems.
>See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100805466304516&w=2
>for a description of hackbench.
>
>The set of data below shows an average time of five hackbench runs
>for each set of groups.  Linux 2.6.0-test9 clearly shows significan
>improvement in the completion times.
>
>Test set 1: Performance of hackbench
>
>(times are in seconds, lower number is better)
>
>number of groups     50     100     150     200
>--------------------------------------------------
>1 CPU
>   2.4.18          15.52   37.63   74.34   110.62
>   2.6.0-test9      9.91   17.86   27.55    39.77
>--------------------------------------------------
>2 CPUs
>   2.4.18          10.50   30.42   64.26   112.46
>   2.6.0-test9      7.44   13.45   19.68    26.68
>--------------------------------------------------
>4 CPUs
>   2.4.18           7.07   22.75   54.10   101.45
>   2.6.0-test9      5.16   9.25    13.64    18.65
>--------------------------------------------------
>8 CPUs
>   2.4.18           7.02   24.63   61.48   114.93
>   2.6.0-test9      4.08   7.15    10.31    13.84
>--------------------------------------------------
>

Hi Craig,
The numbers here are very impressive. Is there is an easy way
to make a table of results like this with STP? What is the
exact parameter line you pass to hackbench to get this?
These are results from a run with my scheduler patch on the
8-way. Not sure if they're comparable but if so they are a
small improvement.

20 		1.69
40 		2.54
60 		3.41
80 		4.38
100 		5.44