From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758307Ab2C1Tjd (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:39:33 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:49665 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758027Ab2C1Tjc (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:39:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4F7368F2.9090007@onlinehome.de> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:39:30 +0200 From: Martin Rogge User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120314 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:O1SBMOSta9/W6H5jRvxxvFFWp1dNuQ4CyAIk8xYkC7d +LZ1Og9L8X/s6R1E/KEOvc7YaiCynmwpz7HRg4biNVzqmdFkqy D+lRCfhRqaGLMPu5uc1rlgB6o6waX7/zrUYlBuZ6Ym1VugDyjq al1dXxtSwqJaA/Y5lyrr9i4R0WgNyKbW+2dzMH+j25AUGxHJDH r7KD5ACpJaGl3rQuPHtI/cPNsw/gRsNAMaG9LtVTZclOwCuFhF B//G3DmuMiaDRTsivcw/7Vfm9cL5MkDISPMRF+WZ4jIVFsJSnx AvQ9yNMovLxKIXUQdgg2ZOSnNQOFPwXaqWZGdHr0HMJGceRkIR KiVZM5K1mxfv0Yon9Cn8= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/28/2012 07:20 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote: > On 25.03.2012, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > >> I'va always wondered what people are using to measure interactivity. Do we have >> some hard numbers from scheduler traces, or is it a "feels faster"? > > I guess it's a "feels faster", because it's the only thing that > counts. I think it's inherently difficult to find an objective measure for the "feeled" smoothness and interactivity of a desktop machine under load. The measuring process probably needs to reside outside the system under test and interpret the HDMI output. And control the mouse input. On a side note, I maintain a little http server and found during testing that different servers respond differently to different schedulers. (Note this is about throughput, not interactivity, since this is about servers and throughput is so easy to measure.) The following is an unedited quote from the README: "As an example look at the following result reading 1000000 static files at concurrency level 100: Kernel Server Keep- Requests Rate Max. Version Alive per sec. [ms] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.1.4 Apache/2.2.21 yes 25427 33388 265 3.1.4 lighttpd/1.4.29 yes 54741 68892 6 3.1.4 MrHTTPD/2.2.0 yes 88898 100888 5 3.1.4-ck2 Apache/2.2.21 yes 43760 57462 17 3.1.4-ck2 lighttpd/1.4.29 yes 49227 61652 6 3.1.4-ck2 MrHTTPD/2.2.0 yes 163158 185150 2 The throughput offered by MrHTTPD is three to four times higher than Apache and Lighttpd. Result sets at higher concurrency continue this trend, and at insane concurrency levels like 10000 or 20000 MrHTTPD is the only responsive server remaining. The other stunning fact proven by these figures is the significant impact of the BFS CPU scheduler and other optimizations inherent in the CK patch, leading to almost twice the throughput compared to the vanilla kernel (which was btw configured to use the CFQ scheduler). This is even more surprising as the design goal of the CK patch is desktop interactivity rather than server throughput. It is also noticable that a fully threaded design like MrHTTPD benefits particularly well from the CK patch, whereas the event-driven design of Lighttpd often seems to perform slightly better under the vanilla kernel."