Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Rob Hussey <robjhussey@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <ck@...>
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 2:40 am

* Rob Hussey <robjhussey@gmail.com> wrote:


pipe-test is a very stable workload, and is thus quite sensitive to the 
associativity of the CPU cache. Even killing the task and repeating the 
same test isnt enough to get rid of the systematic skew that this can 
cause. I've seen divergence of up to 10% in pipe-test. One way to test 
it is to run pipe-test, then to stop it, then to "ssh localhost" (this 
in itself uses up a couple of pipe objects and file objects and changes 
the cache layout picture), then run pipe-test again, then again "ssh 
localhost", etc. Via this trick one can often see cache-layout 
artifacts. How much 'skew' does pipe-test have on your system if you try 
this manually?

	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)