Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

[Con Kolivas]

On Wednesday 18 April 2007 22:14, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:33:56PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 April 2007 18:55, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Again, for comparison 2.6.21-rc7 mainline:
> > >
> > > 508.87user 32.47system 2:17.82elapsed 392%CPU
> > > 509.05user 32.25system 2:17.84elapsed 392%CPU
> > > 508.75user 32.26system 2:17.83elapsed 392%CPU
> > > 508.63user 32.17system 2:17.88elapsed 392%CPU
> > > 509.01user 32.26system 2:17.90elapsed 392%CPU
> > > 509.08user 32.20system 2:17.95elapsed 392%CPU
> > >
> > > So looking at elapsed time, a granularity of 100ms is just behind the
> > > mainline score. However it is using slightly less user time and
> > > slightly more idle time, which indicates that balancing might have got
> > > a bit less aggressive.
> > >
> > > But anyway, it conclusively shows the efficiency impact of such tiny
> > > timeslices.
> >
> > See test.kernel.org for how (the now defunct) SD was performing on
> > kernbench. It had low latency _and_ equivalent throughput to mainline.
> > Set the standard appropriately on both counts please.
>
> I can give it a run. Got an updated patch against -rc7?

I said I wasn't pursuing it but since you're offering, the rc6 patch should 
apply ok.

http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc6-sd-0.40.patch

-- 
-ck
-
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/