Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ed Tomlinson <edt@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Rob,
> 
> I gather this was with the complete -ck patchset?  It would be 
> interesting to see if just SD performed as well.  If it does, CFS 
> needs more work. if not there are other things in -ck that really do 
> improve performance and should be looked into.

yeah. The biggest item in -ck besides SD is swap-prefetch, but that 
shouldnt have an effect in this case. I _think_ that most of the 
measured difference is due to scheduler details though. Right now my 
estimation is that with the patch i sent to Rob, and with latest 
sched-devel.git, CFS should perform as good or better than SD, even in 
these micro-benchmarks. (but i cannot tell what will happen on Rob's 
machine - so i'm keeping an open mind towards any other fixables :-) I'm 
curious about the next round of numbers (if Rob has time to do them).

	Ingo
-
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/