* Satoru Takeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
thanks for testing this! Indeed the min-max values and standard
deviation look all pretty healthy. (They in fact seem to be better than
the other patch of mine against upstream that you tested, correct?)
[ And there's also another nice little detail in your feedback: CFS
actually builds, boots and works fine on ia64 too ;-) ]
Ingo
-
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/
