On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield
> > (which was previously posted to this (lse-tech) list by Bill
> > Hartner). Tests were run on a system with 8 700 MHz Pentium
> > III processors.
> >
> > microseconds/yield
> > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.4 2.4-multi-queue
> > ------------ --------- -------- ---------------
> > 16 18.740 4.603 1.455
>
> I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline O(N)
> scheduler with over 7 tasks in the runqueue (actually I'm not sure if the
> number was 7 but certainly it was under 10). So if you also use a O(1)
> scheduler too as I guess (since you have a chance to run fast on the lots of
> tasks running case) the most interesting thing is how you score with 2/4/8
> tasks in the runqueue (I think the tests on the O(1) scheduler patch was done
> at max on a 2-way SMP btw). (the argument for which Davide's patch wasn't
> included is that most machines have less than 4/5 tasks in the runqueue at the
> same time)
>
> Andrea
Thanks for the suggestion. The only reason I hesitated to test with
a small number of threads is because I was under the assumption that
this particular benchmark may have problems if the number of threads
was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
what benchmarks/test methods I could use for scheduler testing. If
you remember what people have used in the past, please let me know.
--
Mike Kravetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
