Re: more on scheduler benchmarks

2001-01-24 Thread Daniel Phillips
Joe deBlaquiere wrote: > > Maybe I've been off in the hardware lab for too long, but how about > > 1. using ioperm to give access to the parallel port. > 2. have your program write a byte (thread id % 256 ?) constantly to the > port during it's other activity > 3. capture the results from anothe

Re: more on scheduler benchmarks

2001-01-23 Thread Andrew Morton
Bill Hartner wrote: > > Hubertus wrote : > > > The only problem I have with sched_yield like benchmarks is that it > creates > > artificial lock contention as we basically spent most of the time other > > then context switching + syscall under the scheduler lock. This we won't > > see in real ap

Re: more on scheduler benchmarks

2001-01-22 Thread Joe deBlaquiere
Maybe I've been off in the hardware lab for too long, but how about 1. using ioperm to give access to the parallel port. 2. have your program write a byte (thread id % 256 ?) constantly to the port during it's other activity 3. capture the results from another computer with an ecp port This way

Re: [Lse-tech] more on scheduler benchmarks

2001-01-22 Thread Andi Kleen
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 02:23:05PM -0500, Bill Hartner wrote: > Mike K, wrote : > > > > > If the above is accurate, then I am wondering what would be a > > good scheduler benchmark for these low task count situations. > > I could undo the optimizations in sys_sched_yield() (for testing > > purpos

Re: [Lse-tech] more on scheduler benchmarks

2001-01-22 Thread Bill Hartner
Hubertus wrote : > The only problem I have with sched_yield like benchmarks is that it creates > artificial lock contention as we basically spent most of the time other > then context switching + syscall under the scheduler lock. This we won't > see in real apps, that's why I think the chatroom

Re: [Lse-tech] more on scheduler benchmarks

2001-01-22 Thread Hubertus Franke
PIC (Chair) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (w) 914-945-2003(fax) 914-945-4425 TL: 862-2003 Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@lists.sourceforge.net on 01/22/2001 01:17:38 PM Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subjec

Re: [Lse-tech] more on scheduler benchmarks

2001-01-22 Thread Bill Hartner
Mike K, wrote : > > If the above is accurate, then I am wondering what would be a > good scheduler benchmark for these low task count situations. > I could undo the optimizations in sys_sched_yield() (for testing > purposes only!), and run the existing benchmarks. Can anyone > suggest a better s

Re: more on scheduler benchmarks

2001-01-22 Thread Davide Libenzi
On Monday 22 January 2001 10:30, Mike Kravetz wrote: > Last week while discussing scheduler benchmarks, Bill Hartner > made a comment something like the following "the benchmark may > not even be invoking the scheduler as you expect". This comment > did not fully sink in until this weekend when I

more on scheduler benchmarks

2001-01-22 Thread Mike Kravetz
Last week while discussing scheduler benchmarks, Bill Hartner made a comment something like the following "the benchmark may not even be invoking the scheduler as you expect". This comment did not fully sink in until this weekend when I started thinking about changes made to sched_yield() in 2.4.