From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932416AbVHSE0F (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:26:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932541AbVHSE0F (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:26:05 -0400 Received: from omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.82.155]:4930 "EHLO omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932416AbVHSE0E (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: <43055F5A.2000406@bigpond.net.au> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:26:02 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lee Revell CC: Michal Piotrowski , Con Kolivas , LKML Subject: Re: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6 References: <43001E18.8020707@bigpond.net.au> <200508180916.08454.kernel@kolivas.org> <4303CCB9.6000403@bigpond.net.au> <200508180945.50185.kernel@kolivas.org> <6bffcb0e050818200936bad1d3@mail.gmail.com> <1124422128.25424.7.camel@mindpipe> In-Reply-To: <1124422128.25424.7.camel@mindpipe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com from [147.10.133.38] using ID pwil3058@bigpond.net.au at Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:26:02 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Lee Revell wrote: > On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > >>Hi, >>here are interbench v0.29 resoults: > > > The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting. > > Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with > default max_ia_bonus and max_tpt_bonus manages to deliver under 100ms > max latency. As expected with interactivity bonus disabled it performs > horribly. > > I'd like to see some results with X reniced to -10. Despite what the > 2.6 release notes say, this still seems to make a difference. Even spa_no_frills, which does absolutely nothing to help interactive (or other special interest) tasks, can cope in these circumstances as illustrated by these results from my (relatively old) SMP machine show: --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of X nice -10 in the presence of simulated --- Load Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met None 0.01 +/- 0.129 2 100 99.3 Video 0.007 +/- 0.0818 1 100 99.3 Burn 0.006 +/- 0.0817 1 100 99.3 Write 0.033 +/- 0.271 3 99.3 98 Read 0.046 +/- 0.337 3 98.4 97 Compile 0.023 +/- 0.208 2 99.3 98.3 Memload 0.043 +/- 0.31 3 98.1 97 This machine isn't directly comparable with Michal's so for comparison here are the results from "out of the box" Zaphod on the same machine: --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of X in the presence of simulated --- Load Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met None 0.02 +/- 0.2 2 99.3 98.7 Video 0.007 +/- 0.0818 1 100 99.3 Burn 0.023 +/- 0.208 2 99.3 98.3 Write 0.147 +/- 0.949 12 94.7 93.2 Read 0.033 +/- 0.258 2 98.7 97.7 Compile 2.94 +/- 10.7 105 76.8 71.6 Memload 0.017 +/- 0.153 2 100 98.7 As you can see there's evidence in these numbers the file writes are implicated in the bad numbers for the Compile load (which is a mixture of Burn, Read, Write and (I think) Memload). So testing with different I/O schedulers might be interesting. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce