Home » Mailing list archives » linux-kernel » 2007 » September » 17

Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
[view in full thread]
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
To: Ed Tomlinson <edt@...>
Cc: Rob Hussey <robjhussey@...>, <efault@...>, <a.p.zijlstra@...>, <zippel@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <ck@...>
Subject: Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
Date: Monday, September 17, 2007 - 4:22 pm

* Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca> wrote:


yeah. The biggest item in -ck besides SD is swap-prefetch, but that 
shouldnt have an effect in this case. I _think_ that most of the 
measured difference is due to scheduler details though. Right now my 
estimation is that with the patch i sent to Rob, and with latest 
sched-devel.git, CFS should perform as good or better than SD, even in 
these micro-benchmarks. (but i cannot tell what will happen on Rob's 
machine - so i'm keeping an open mind towards any other fixables :-) I'm 
curious about the next round of numbers (if Rob has time to do them).

	Ingo
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
Messages in current thread:
Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Rob Hussey, (Mon Sep 17, 5:21 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Sep 17, 9:05 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Rob Hussey, (Mon Sep 17, 9:44 pm)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Sep 17, 4:36 pm)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Rob Hussey, (Tue Sep 18, 12:30 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Sep 18, 4:48 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Rob Hussey, (Tue Sep 18, 5:45 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Sep 18, 5:48 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Sep 18, 2:40 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Rob Hussey, (Tue Sep 18, 4:23 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Willy Tarreau, (Tue Sep 18, 12:53 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Rob Hussey, (Tue Sep 18, 12:58 am)
Re: [ck] Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Jos Poortvliet, (Mon Sep 17, 10:01 am)
Re: [ck] Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Sep 17, 10:12 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Sep 17, 7:27 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ed Tomlinson, (Mon Sep 17, 7:12 am)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Sep 17, 4:22 pm)
Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Sep 17, 7:47 am)