Re: [TEST RESULT]massive_intr.c -- cfs/vanilla/sd-0.40

[Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>]

At Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:02:20 +0200,
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> 
> * surya.prabhakar@wipro.com <surya.prabhakar@wipro.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ingo,
> >   Did a test with massive_intr.c on a standard linux desktop.
> > for vanilla, con's Sd-0.40 and cfs.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> > [surya@bluegenie tests]$ ./massive_intr 10 10
> > 002435  00000120
> > 002439  00000120
> > 002441  00000120
> > 002434  00000120
> > 002436  00000120
> > 002440  00000120
> > 002432  00000120
> > 002437  00000120
> > 002433  00000120
> > 002438  00000120
> > 
> > Felt it is too much fair, will try another pass ;)
> 
> hehe :)
> 
> > [surya@bluegenie tests]$ ./massive_intr 10 10
> > 002961  00000121
> > 002965  00000120
> > 002964  00000121
> > 002959  00000120
> > 002956  00000121
> > 002963  00000121
> > 002960  00000121
> > 002962  00000121
> > 002958  00000122
> > 002957  00000122
> 
> btw., other schedulers might work better with some more test-time: i'd 
> suggest to use 60 seconds (./massive_intr 10 60) [or maybe more, using 
> more threads] to see long-term fairness effects.

I tested CFS with massive_intr. I did long term, many CPUs, and many
processes cases.

Test environment
================

 - kernel:         2.6.21-rc6-CFS
 - run time:       300 secs
 - # of CPU:       1 or 4
 - # of processes: 200 or 800

Result
======

  +---------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
  |   # of  |   # of    | avg   | max  | min  |  stdev |
  |   CPUs  | processes | (*1)  | (*2) | (*3) |  (*4)  |
  +---------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
  | 1(i386) |           | 117.9 |  123 |  115 |    1.2 |
  +---------|       200 +-------+------+------+--------+
  |         |           | 750.2 |  767 |  735 |   10.6 |
  | 4(ia64) +-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
  |         |   800(*5) | 187.3 |  189 |  186 |    0.8 |
  +---------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+

  *1) average number of loops among all processes
  *2) maximum number of loops among all processes
  *3) minimum number of loops among all processes
  *4) standard deviation
  *5) Its # of processes per CPU is equal to first test case.

Pretty good! CFS seems to be fair in any situation.

Satoru