On Friday 12 October 2007 15:46, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ;) I think you snipped the important bit: > > > > "the peak is terrible but it has virtually no dropoff and performs > > better under load than the default 2.6.21 scheduler." (verbatim) > > hm, i understood that peak remark to be in reference to FreeBSD's > scheduler (which the FreeBSD guys are primarily interested in > obviously), not v2.6.21 - but i could be wrong.
I think the Linux peak has always been roughly as good as their best FreeBSD ones (eg. http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/sysbench.png). Obviously in that graph, Linux sucks because of the malloc/mmap_sem issue. It also shows what he is calling the terrible CFS peak, I guess. In my own tests, after that was fixed, Linux's peak got even a bit higher, so that's the benchmark for performance. > In any case, there is indeed a regression with sysbench and a low number > of threads, and it's being fixed. The peak got improved visibly in > sched-devel: > > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/misc/sysbench-sched-devel.jpg > > but there is still some peak regression left, i'm testing a patch for > that. OK good. Once that's fixed, we'll hopefully be competitive with FreeBSD again in this test :) - 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/
