On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 18:25 +0900, MAEDA Naoaki wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've taken some benchmark results of cpurc-v0.3-2615 in order to
> measure its overhead and the accuracy of enforced CPU share.
> 
> 1) Overhead measurement with lat_ctx -s 0 in various # of processes
> 
> The overhead is between -0.02 to +0.07 microseconds.
> It is quite small.
> 
>   #   Vanilla 2.6.15   2.6.15+cpurc-v0.3      Diff [us]
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>   2           0.51            0.52            +0.01
>   4           0.58            0.6             +0.02
>   8           0.71            0.71             0.0
>  16           0.72            0.72             0.0
>  32           0.73            0.72            -0.01
>  64           0.78            0.85            +0.07
> 128           1.08            1.06            -0.02
> 256           1.85            1.89            +0.04
> ----------------------------------------------------------

        These numbers look pretty good. Are you doing multiple runs of lat_ctx
-s 0 at the same number of processes in order to get some idea of how
noisy the difference is? Perhaps these values are within the noise
margin.

> 2) CPU share enforcement test with kernbench
> 
> User and Sys time are almost constant in every case.
> On the other hand, enforcing shares are _roughly_ equal to
> the percentages of CPU consumed by kernbench. It is not too bad,
> but further investigation is needed.
> 
> Share[%]  Elaps[s]  User[s]    Sys[s] CPU[%]
> ----------------------------------------------
> 100      321.9     295.1      19.7    97.0
>  90      325.4     293.5      19.5    95.8
>  80      345.9     293.2      19.7    90.0
>  70      392.6     293.3      19.6    79.2
>  60      466.0     293.6      19.8    66.8
>  50      583.0     296.4      19.8    53.8
>  40      725.3     297.7      19.6    43.2
>  30      925.2     299.6      19.4    34.0
>  20     1458.2     301.5      19.3    21.2
>  10     2595.5     303.4      20.0    12.0
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
>  - One class for running kernbench was defined and various
>    share was set to the class.
> 
>  - kernbench -M against 2.6.15 kernel source
> 
>  - Five infinity loop programs were running on the default_class
>    at the same time. Otherwise, kernbench was able to consume
>    all of the CPU resource.

Nice results!

Out of curiosity, do you know why 1 infinite loop was not sufficient as
a load?

Cheers,
        -Matt Helsley



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech

Reply via email to