Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:09 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:28 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > > No difference. Then I tried switching NO_NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS on, and then
> > > I get:
> > > 
> > >  Performance counter stats for 'xmodmap .xmodmap-carl':
> > > 
> > >        9.009137  task-clock-msecs         #      0.447 CPUs 
> > >              18  context-switches         #      0.002 M/sec
> > >               1  CPU-migrations           #      0.000 M/sec
> > >             315  page-faults              #      0.035 M/sec
> > >   <not counted>  cycles                  
> > >   <not counted>  instructions            
> > >   <not counted>  cache-references        
> > >   <not counted>  cache-misses            
> > > 
> > >     0.020167093  seconds time elapsed
> > > 
> > > Woot!
> > 
> > Something is very seriously hosed on that box... clock?
> 
> model name      : Genuine Intel(R) CPU           T2400  @ 1.83GHz
> 
> Throttles down to 1.00GHz when idle.
> 
> > Can you turn it back on, and do..
> 
> I guess you mean turn NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS back on, correct?
> 
> > 	while sleep .1; do cat /proc/sched_debug >> foo; done 
> > ..on one core, and (quickly;) xmodmap .xmodmap-carl, then send me a few
> > seconds worth (gzipped up) to eyeball?
> 
> Attached.

xmodmap doesn't seem to be running in this sample.

	-Mike

--
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/