From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264974AbTLFKup (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 05:50:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264976AbTLFKup (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 05:50:45 -0500 Received: from mail-03.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.35]:464 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264974AbTLFKun (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 05:50:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3FD1B47E.3050600@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:50:38 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Thomas CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Prcess scheduler Imiprovements in 2.6.0-test9 References: <1070650522.13254.28.camel@bullpen.pdx.osdl.net> In-Reply-To: <1070650522.13254.28.camel@bullpen.pdx.osdl.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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