From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:09:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:09:31 -0400 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:3013 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 19:09:29 -0400 To: rwhron@earthlink.net cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: Gerrit Huizenga From: Gerrit Huizenga Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler gives big boost to tbench 192 In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 02 May 2002 17:36:56 EDT. <20020502173656.A26986@rushmore> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2344.1020384545.1@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 17:09:05 -0700 Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <20020502173656.A26986@rushmore>, > : rwhron@earthlink.net writes: > On an OSDL 4 way x86 box the O(1) scheduler effect > becomes obvious as the run queue gets large. > > 2.4.19-pre7-ac2 and 2.4.19-pre7-jam6 have the O(1) scheduler. > > At 192 processes, O(1) shows about 340% improvement in throughput. > The dyn-sched in -aa appears to be somewhat improved over the > standard scheduler. > > Numbers are in MB/second. > If you are bored, you might compare this to the MQ scheduler at http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/lse/2.4.14.mq-sched Also, I think rml did a backport of the 2.5.X version of O(1); I'm not sure if htat is in -ac or -jam as yet. Rumor is that on some workloads MQ it outperforms O(1), but it may be that the latest (post K3?) O(1) is catching up? gerrit