At Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:02:20 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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! > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 :) > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
