Re: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL

[Nick Piggin]

Xenofon Antidides wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> To: Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux list <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:22:49 PM
> Subject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL
>
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > * Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix 
> > > wedge now.
>
> [...]
>
>
> > and the numbers he posted:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117448900626028&w=2
>
>
> We been staring at these numbers for while now and we come to the conclusion they wrong.
>
> The test is f is 3 tasks, two on different and one on same cpu as sh here:
> virgin 2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp
> top - 13:52:50 up 7 min, 12 users,  load average: 3.45, 2.89, 1.51
>
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  P COMMAND
>  6560 root      31   0  2892 1236 1032 R   82  0.1   1:50.24 1 sh
>  6558 root      28   0  1428  276  228 S   42  0.0   1:00.09 1 f
>  6557 root      30   0  1424  280  228 R   35  0.0   1:00.25 0 f
>  6559 root      39   0  1424  276  228 R   33  0.0   0:58.36 0 f
>
> 6560 sh is asking for 100% cpu on cpu number 1
> 6558 f is asking for 50% cpu on cpu number 1
> 6557 f is asking for 50% cpu on cpu number 0
> 6559 f is asking for 50% cpu on cpu number 0
>
> So if 6560 and 6558 are asking for cpu from cpu number 1:
> 6560 wants 100% and 6558 wants 50%.
> 6560 should get 2/3 cpu 6558 should get 1/3 cpu

I don't think you can say that. If the 50% task alternated between
long periods of running and sleeping, then the end result should
approach a task that is sleeping for 50% of the time, and on the
CPU 25% of the time. As the periods get shorter, then the schedulers
will favour the 50% task relatively more, but details will depend on
implementation.

You could have an implementation that always gives runs the 50% task
when it becomes runnable, because it is decided that its priority is
higher because it has been sleeping.

The only thing you can really say is that the 50% task should get
between 25% and 50% (inclusive) CPU time.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/