On Monday 22 January 2001 08:57, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> Per popular demand. Here are a few numbers for small thread counts
> running the sched_yield_test benchmark on a 2-way SMP with the following
> characteristics.
>
> model name : Pentium III (Katmai)
> stepping: 3
> cpu MHz
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestion
], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
OK!
what benchmarks
On Monday 22 January 2001 08:57, Hubertus Franke wrote:
Per popular demand. Here are a few numbers for small thread counts
running the sched_yield_test benchmark on a 2-way SMP with the following
characteristics.
model name : Pentium III (Katmai)
stepping: 3
cpu MHz :
On Friday 19 January 2001 15:23, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:03:06PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
>
> > > voidoneatwork(int thr)
> > > {
> > > int i;
> > > while (!start) /* don't disturb pthread_create() */
> > >
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:03:06PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > voidoneatwork(int thr)
> > {
> > int i;
> > while (!start) /* don't disturb pthread_create() */
> > usleep(1);
> >
> > actthreads++;
> > while (!stop)
> > {
>
On Friday 19 January 2001 13:59, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:49:21PM -0800, Mike Kravetz showed his lack
>
> of internet slang understanding and wrote:
> > It was my intention to post IIRC numbers for small thread counts today.
> > However, the benchmark (not the system)
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:49:21PM -0800, Mike Kravetz showed his lack
of internet slang understanding and wrote:
>
> It was my intention to post IIRC numbers for small thread counts today.
> However, the benchmark (not the system) seems to hang on occasion. This
> occurs on both the unmodified
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 05:34:35PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:30:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> > > with a smaller number
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:12:11PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > incurred in the current implementation. To maintain existing
> > scheduler behavior, we look at all CPU specific runqueues to find
> > the highest priority (goodness) task in the system. Therefore,
>
> do you have cpu-affinity?
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:03:05PM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
>
> Mike sounds good, we will do all our measurements from now on with thread
> count for the entire range from 1 to 16 and
> then in power of twos upto 2048 and for maxcpus=1,2,4,6,8. Do you think
> that 4096 is overkill ? So far
ROTECTED]> on 01/19/2001 12:11:04 PM
To: Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:47:06AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> What you can see from these numbers is that
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:47:06AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> What you can see from these numbers is that MQ does an awesome job up to
> 1024 threads. When measuring in the future, we will take from now on the
> general concern about low number of threads into account. Your points are
>
> >
> >
> >
> > another thing that would be interesting is what is the overhead on UP or
> > small (2-4 way) SMP machines
> >
> > David Lang
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:5
drea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
You might want to rerun the tests with less cache heavy procs. The 2meg
xeons you are using could distort things from what the average linux user
woul
914-945-2003(fax) 914-945-4425 TL: 862-2003
>
>
>
> David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@lists.sourceforge.net on 01/19/2001
> 11:06:37 AM
>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> To: Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL P
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@lists.sourceforge.net on 01/19/2001
11:06:37 AM
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue
TED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > Here are som
TECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline
O(N)
> scheduler with over 7 tasks in the runq
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline
O(N)
scheduler with over 7 tasks in the runqueue (actually I'm not sure if the
number
], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield
(which was previously
PROTECTED]@lists.sourceforge.net on 01/19/2001
11:06:37 AM
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Kravetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
another thing that would
]@lists.sourceforge.net on 01/19/2001
11:06:37 AM
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Kravetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
another thing that would be interesting
eli [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
You might want to rerun the tests with less cache heavy procs. The 2meg
xeons you are using could distort things from what the average linux user
would see (running with 256-
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Kravetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
another thing that would be interesting is what is the overhead
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:47:06AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
stuff deleted
What you can see from these numbers is that MQ does an awesome job up to
1024 threads. When measuring in the future, we will take from now on the
general concern about low number of threads into account. Your points
PROTECTED] on 01/19/2001 12:11:04 PM
To: Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:47:06AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
stuff deleted
What you can see from these numbers is th
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:12:11PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
incurred in the current implementation. To maintain existing
scheduler behavior, we look at all CPU specific runqueues to find
the highest priority (goodness) task in the system. Therefore,
do you have cpu-affinity? the
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 05:34:35PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:30:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
with a smaller number of
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:49:21PM -0800, Mike Kravetz showed his lack
of internet slang understanding and wrote:
It was my intention to post IIRC numbers for small thread counts today.
However, the benchmark (not the system) seems to hang on occasion. This
occurs on both the unmodified
On Friday 19 January 2001 13:59, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:49:21PM -0800, Mike Kravetz showed his lack
of internet slang understanding and wrote:
It was my intention to post IIRC numbers for small thread counts today.
However, the benchmark (not the system) seems to
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:03:06PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
stuff deleted
voidoneatwork(int thr)
{
int i;
while (!start) /* don't disturb pthread_create() */
usleep(1);
actthreads++;
while (!stop)
{
On Friday 19 January 2001 15:23, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:03:06PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
stuff deleted
voidoneatwork(int thr)
{
int i;
while (!start) /* don't disturb pthread_create() */
On Thursday 18 January 2001 17:39, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> > with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
>
> OK!
>
> > what
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:30:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> > with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
>
> OK!
>
> > what
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
> with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
OK!
> what benchmarks/test methods I could use for scheduler testing. If
> you remember what
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline O(N)
> scheduler with over 7 tasks in the runqueue (actually I'm not sure if the
> number was 7 but certainly it was under 10). So if you also use a O(1)
>
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield
> > (which was previously posted to this (lse-tech) list by Bill
> > Hartner). Tests were run on a
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:53:11PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
Here are some very preliminary numbers from sched_test_yield
(which was previously posted to this (lse-tech) list by Bill
Hartner). Tests were run on a system
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline O(N)
scheduler with over 7 tasks in the runqueue (actually I'm not sure if the
number was 7 but certainly it was under 10). So if you also use a O(1)
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
OK!
what benchmarks/test methods I could use for scheduler testing. If
you remember what
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:30:41AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
OK!
what
On Thursday 18 January 2001 17:39, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:52:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
was less than the number of processors. I'll give the tests a try
with a smaller number of threads. I'm also open to suggestions for
OK!
what benchmarks/test
43 matches
Mail list logo
