* Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

quoted text
> I hacked it a bit to make it accept two parameters :
>   -R <run_time_in_microsecond> : time spent burning CPU cycles at each round
>   -S <sleep_time_in_microsecond> : time spent getting a rest
> 
> It now advances what it thinks is a second at each iteration, so that 
> it makes it easy to compare its progress with other instances (there 
> are seconds, minutes and hours, so it's easy to visually count up to 
> around 43200).
> 
> The modified code is here :
> 
>   http://linux.1wt.eu/sched/orbitclock-0.2bench.tgz
> 
> What is interesting to note is that it's easy to make X work a lot 
> (99%) by using 0 as the sleeping time, and it's easy to make the 
> process work a lot by using large values for the running time 
> associated with very low values (or 0) for the sleep time.
> 
> Ah, and it supports -geometry ;-)
> 
> It could become a useful scheduler benchmark !

i just tried ocbench-0.3, and it is indeed very nice!

Would it make sense perhaps to (optionally?) also log some sort of 
periodic text feedback to stdout, about the quality of scheduling? Maybe 
even a 'run this many seconds' option plus a summary text output at the 
end (which would output measured runtime, observed longest/smallest 
latency and standard deviation of latencies maybe)? That would make it 
directly usable both as a 'consistency of X app scheduling' visual test 
and as an easily shareable benchmark with an objective numeric result as 
well.

	Ingo
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/