Re: call for more SD versus CFS comparisons (was: Re: [ck]Mainline plans)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> * Tobias Gerschner <tobias.gerschner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I did run massive_intr.c for 60 secs with increasing nproc ( 
> > 10,20,30,40,50,60) waiting for effects.
> > 
> > Below a small table of the results
> > 
> > 2.6.21.1-cfs-v16
> > 
> > nproc ,  usability result
> > 
> > 10 , serious frame drops , Firefox  hardly recognizes clicked links,
> > but still usable
> > 20 - 30, usability loss ( somehow under cfs firefox never finished 
> > user requests like displaying web pages or opening new pages , no 
> > feedback anymore, sudden changes on the desktop )
> 
> ouch! The expected load-testing result under CFS should be something 
> like this:
> 
>    http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2007-June/007817.html

i have just tried the same workload with cfs and with sd048 from -ck, 
and cannot reproduce this. To make sure it's not some other change in 
-ck, could you try the pure SD patches ontop of 2.6.21.1 too:

 http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/2.6.21/2.6.21-ck2/patches/2.6.21-sd-0.48.patch
 http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/2.6.21/2.6.21-ck2/patches/sched-sd-0.48-interactive_tunable.patch

	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/