Hi,
On 8/22/05, Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > [1.] One line summary of the problem:
> > oops when shuting down system
> >
> > [2.] Full description of the problem/report:
> > After kernbenching nicksched (heav load make -j128) I just record
> > results
Hi,
On 8/22/05, Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
oops when shuting down system
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
After kernbenching nicksched (heav load make -j128) I just record
results on cd and
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:44, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well it will survive all right, but eventually get into swap thrash
> > territory and that's not a meaningful cpu scheduler benchmark.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Con
>
> Ok. How about make -j?
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well it will survive all right, but eventually get into swap thrash territory
> and that's not a meaningful cpu scheduler benchmark.
>
> Cheers,
> Con
>
Ok. How about make -j? It's one of kernbench test runs, on my box load
average > 1500
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:16, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > > Hi,
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > > here are kernbench results:
> >
> > Nice to see you using kernbench :)
> >
> > > ./kernbench -M -o
Hi,
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi
>
> > here are kernbench results:
>
> Nice to see you using kernbench :)
>
> > ./kernbench -M -o 128
> > [..]
> > Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
>
> Was there any
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> here are kernbench results:
Nice to see you using kernbench :)
> ./kernbench -M -o 128
> [..]
> Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
Was there any reason you chose 128? Optimal usually works out automatically
from kernbench to 4x
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
oops when shuting down system
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
After kernbenching nicksched (heav load make -j128) I just record
results on cd and shutdown system.
[3.] Keywords (i.e., modules, networking, kernel):
plugsched, nicksched, sysfs,
Hi,
here are kernbench results:
cpusched=ingosched
./kernbench -M -o 128
[..]
Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
Elapsed Time 365,4
User Time 620,8
System Time 64,6
Percent CPU 187,2
Context Switches 38296,8
Sleeps 37867
(reboot)
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 10:31 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> It's an X problem and it's being fixed. Get over it, we're not tuning
> the scheduler for a broken app.
>
You're right, this problem seems much, much better in Xorg 6.8.2. I
think the Damage extension might be responsible. There's
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 10:31 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
It's an X problem and it's being fixed. Get over it, we're not tuning
the scheduler for a broken app.
You're right, this problem seems much, much better in Xorg 6.8.2. I
think the Damage extension might be responsible. There's definitely
Hi,
here are kernbench results:
cpusched=ingosched
./kernbench -M -o 128
[..]
Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
Elapsed Time 365,4
User Time 620,8
System Time 64,6
Percent CPU 187,2
Context Switches 38296,8
Sleeps 37867
(reboot)
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
oops when shuting down system
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
After kernbenching nicksched (heav load make -j128) I just record
results on cd and shutdown system.
[3.] Keywords (i.e., modules, networking, kernel):
plugsched, nicksched, sysfs,
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
Hi
here are kernbench results:
Nice to see you using kernbench :)
./kernbench -M -o 128
[..]
Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
Was there any reason you chose 128? Optimal usually works out automatically
from kernbench to 4x
Hi,
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
Hi
here are kernbench results:
Nice to see you using kernbench :)
./kernbench -M -o 128
[..]
Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run:
Was there any reason you chose 128?
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:16, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
Hi
here are kernbench results:
Nice to see you using kernbench :)
./kernbench -M -o 128
[..]
Average
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well it will survive all right, but eventually get into swap thrash territory
and that's not a meaningful cpu scheduler benchmark.
Cheers,
Con
Ok. How about make -j? It's one of kernbench test runs, on my box load
average 1500 ;).
BTW I
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:44, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 8/21/05, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well it will survive all right, but eventually get into swap thrash
territory and that's not a meaningful cpu scheduler benchmark.
Cheers,
Con
Ok. How about make -j? It's one of
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 10:31 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:13, Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> > I agree that tweaking the scheduler is probably pointless, as long as X
> > is burning gazillions of CPU cycles redrawing things that don't need to
> > be redrawn.
> >
> > Then again even
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:13, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 14:36 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> > > Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't
> > > destroy Audio and Video? The results that I just posted
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 14:36 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> > Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't
> > destroy Audio and Video? The results that I just posted for
> > spa_no_frills with X reniced to -10 suggest
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 14:36 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't
destroy Audio and Video? The results that I just posted for
spa_no_frills with X reniced to -10 suggest that the
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:13, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 14:36 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't
destroy Audio and Video? The results that I just posted for
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 10:31 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:13, Lee Revell wrote:
I agree that tweaking the scheduler is probably pointless, as long as X
is burning gazillions of CPU cycles redrawing things that don't need to
be redrawn.
Then again even the OSX
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
> >>
> >>The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test -
Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with
default max_ia_bonus and
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
>
> The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.
>
> Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
> here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated "Compile" load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with
default max_ia_bonus and max_tpt_bonus manages to
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
cpusched=ingosched
Using 1844991 loops per ms, running every load for 30 seconds
Benchmarking kernel 2.6.13-rc6-2 at datestamp 200508181941
--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated ---
LoadLatency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
cpusched=ingosched
Using 1844991 loops per ms, running every load for 30 seconds
Benchmarking kernel 2.6.13-rc6-2 at datestamp 200508181941
--- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated ---
LoadLatency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated Compile load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with
default max_ia_bonus and max_tpt_bonus manages to deliver
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated Compile load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only Zaphod with
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated Compile load looks most interesting.
Most of the schedulers do quite poorly on this test - only
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:28 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 05:09 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are interbench v0.29 resoults:
The X test under simulated Compile load looks most interesting.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:48 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> >>Con Kolivas wrote:
> > He did a make allyesconfig which is a bit different and probably far too
> > i/o bound. By the way a single kernel compile is hardly a
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
> >>Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
> >>>[bits deleted]
> >>
> >>Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
| Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:04, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
> here are additional staircase scheduler benchmarks.
>
> (make all -j8)
>
> scheduler:
> staircase
>
> sched_compute=1
> real49m48.619s
> user77m20.788s
> sys 6m7.653s
Very nice thank you.
Since you are benchmarking, here is
Hi,
here are additional staircase scheduler benchmarks.
(make all -j8)
scheduler:
staircase
sched_compute=1
schedstat:
version 12
timestamp 4294712019
cpu0 1 0 0 31 0 18994 4568 7407 5903 10267 6976 14426
domain0 3 18574 18398 6 3938 193 4 0 18398 335 285 0 1191 175 0 0 285 4753 4508
75 6843
Hi,
On 8/17/05, Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was intrigued by the fact that zaphod(d,d) and zaphod(d,0) take longer
> in real time but use less cpu. I was assuming that this meant that some
> other job was getting some cpu but the schedstats data doesn't support
> that. Also it
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
> Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
> > [bits deleted]
>
> Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
>
> | Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
>
>
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
| Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
---
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
| Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
---
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
| Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
Hi,
On 8/17/05, Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was intrigued by the fact that zaphod(d,d) and zaphod(d,0) take longer
in real time but use less cpu. I was assuming that this meant that some
other job was getting some cpu but the schedstats data doesn't support
that. Also it
Hi,
here are additional staircase scheduler benchmarks.
(make all -j8)
scheduler:
staircase
sched_compute=1
schedstat:
version 12
timestamp 4294712019
cpu0 1 0 0 31 0 18994 4568 7407 5903 10267 6976 14426
domain0 3 18574 18398 6 3938 193 4 0 18398 335 285 0 1191 175 0 0 285 4753 4508
75 6843
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:04, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are additional staircase scheduler benchmarks.
(make all -j8)
scheduler:
staircase
sched_compute=1
real49m48.619s
user77m20.788s
sys 6m7.653s
Very nice thank you.
Since you are benchmarking, here is an
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python script.
| Build Statistics | Overall Statistics
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached Python
script.
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10, Peter Williams wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
[bits deleted]
Here's a summary of your output generated using the attached
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:48 am, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:15 am, Peter Williams wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
He did a make allyesconfig which is a bit different and probably far too
i/o bound. By the way a single kernel compile is hardly a reproducible
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
II 2.6.12 kernel compilation. (make allyesconfig, time make all -j64)
1
scheduler:
ingosched
schedstat:
version 12
timestamp 4294703525
cpu0 0 0 56 56 169 18916 4327 7006 5153 8279 4999 14589
domain0 3 14286 13960 223 8331 213 41 0 13960 515 361 8 4456
Hi,
here are schedulers benchmark (part2):
II 2.6.12 kernel compilation. (make allyesconfig, time make all -j64)
1
scheduler:
ingosched
schedstat:
version 12
timestamp 4294703525
cpu0 0 0 56 56 169 18916 4327 7006 5153 8279 4999 14589
domain0 3 14286 13960 223 8331 213 41 0 13960 515 361 8 4456
55 matches
Mail list logo
