On 9/11/07, Rob Hussey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > When compiling, I get:
Yeah, this was my fault :(
I've had a chance to test this now, and everything feels great. I did
some benchmarks for 2.6.23-rc1, 2.6.23-rc6-cfs, and
2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel:
lat_ctx -s 0 2:
2.6.23-rc1 2.6.23-rc6-cfs 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel
5.15 4.91 5.05
5.23 5.18 4.85
5.19 4.89 5.17
5.36 5.23 4.86
5.35 5.00 5.13
5.34 5.05 5.12
5.26 4.99 5.06
5.11 5.04 4.96
5.29 5.19 5.18
5.40 4.93 5.07
hackbench 50:
2.6.23-rc1 2.6.23-rc6-cfs 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel
6.301 5.963 5.837
6.417 5.961 5.814
6.468 5.965 5.757
6.525 5.926 5.840
6.320 5.929 5.751
6.457 5.909 5.825
pipe-test (http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/tools/pipe-test.c):
2.6.23-rc1 2.6.23-rc6-cfs 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel
14.29 14.03 13.89
14.31 14.01 14.10
14.27 13.99 14.15
14.31 14.02 14.16
14.53 14.02 14.14
14.53 14.27 14.16
14.51 14.36 14.12
14.48 14.33 14.16
14.52 14.36 14.17
14.47 14.36 14.15
I turned the results into graphs as well. I'll attach them, but they're also at:
http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/lat_ctx_benchmark.png
http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/hackbench_benchmark.png
http://www.healthcarelinen.com/misc/pipe-test_benchmark.png
The hackbench and pipe-test numbers are very encouraging. The avg
between the 2.6.23-rc6-cfs and 2.6.23-rc6-cfs-devel lat_ctx numbers
are nearly identical (5.041 and 5.045 respectively).
<<attachment: lat_ctx_benchmark.png>>
<<attachment: hackbench_benchmark.png>>
<<attachment: pipe-test_benchmark.png>>
