Re: Scheduling changes in -mm tree
--Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Saturday, March 19, 2005 14:07:54 -0800): > "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least >> *something* in your tree isn't ... >> >> Kernbench: >> ElapsedSystem User CPU >> elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24146.60 1117.61 2516.67 >> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27141.14 1099.91 2374.33 >> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88142.41 1104.85 2403.67 >> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23145.04 1100.70 2431.00 >> >> (elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT) > > Sounds like the CPU scheduler, yes > >> Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone? > > Nick has tossed out and redone all the scheduler patches from -mm4, but I > assume it's all pretty much the same. > > At http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/mbligh.gz is a rollup > (against 2.6.12-rc1) of Kernbench: ElapsedSystem User CPU elm3b67 2.6.12-rc1 49.02147.91 1105.49 2556.00 elm3b67 mbligh 52.30142.24 1105.83 2385.33 That doesn't seem like an improvement ;-) (last run is just adding above patch) I'll try to get you results on a couple more machines, but I'm fighting with the test harness to get it to behave (plus I now have to rerun all the tests with CONFIG_BROKEN turned on to get CONFIG_SCSI_QLOGIC_ISP to work). M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Scheduling changes in -mm tree
--Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (on Saturday, March 19, 2005 14:07:54 -0800): Martin J. Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least *something* in your tree isn't ... Kernbench: ElapsedSystem User CPU elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24146.60 1117.61 2516.67 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27141.14 1099.91 2374.33 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88142.41 1104.85 2403.67 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23145.04 1100.70 2431.00 (elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT) Sounds like the CPU scheduler, yes Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone? Nick has tossed out and redone all the scheduler patches from -mm4, but I assume it's all pretty much the same. At http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/mbligh.gz is a rollup (against 2.6.12-rc1) of Kernbench: ElapsedSystem User CPU elm3b67 2.6.12-rc1 49.02147.91 1105.49 2556.00 elm3b67 mbligh 52.30142.24 1105.83 2385.33 That doesn't seem like an improvement ;-) (last run is just adding above patch) I'll try to get you results on a couple more machines, but I'm fighting with the test harness to get it to behave (plus I now have to rerun all the tests with CONFIG_BROKEN turned on to get CONFIG_SCSI_QLOGIC_ISP to work). M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Scheduling changes in -mm tree
"Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least > *something* in your tree isn't ... > > Kernbench: > ElapsedSystem User CPU > elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24146.60 1117.61 2516.67 > elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27141.14 1099.91 2374.33 > elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88142.41 1104.85 2403.67 > elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23145.04 1100.70 2431.00 > > (elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT) Sounds like the CPU scheduler, yes > Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone? Nick has tossed out and redone all the scheduler patches from -mm4, but I assume it's all pretty much the same. At http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/mbligh.gz is a rollup (against 2.6.12-rc1) of sched2-fix-schedstats-warning.patch sched2-cleanup-wake_idle.patch sched2-improve-load-balancing-pinned-tasks.patch sched2-reduce-active-load-balancing.patch sched2-fix-smt-scheduling-problems.patch sched2-add-debugging.patch sched2-less-aggressive-idle-balancing.patch sched2-balance-timers.patch sched2-tweak-affine-wakeups.patch sched2-no-aggressive-idle-balancing.patch sched2-balance-on-fork.patch sched2-schedstats-update-for-balance-on-fork.patch sched2-sched-tuning.patch sched2-sched-domain-sysctl.patch add-do_proc_doulonglongvec_minmax-to-sysctl-functions.patch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Scheduling changes in -mm tree
I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least *something* in your tree isn't ... Kernbench: ElapsedSystem User CPU elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24146.60 1117.61 2516.67 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27141.14 1099.91 2374.33 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88142.41 1104.85 2403.67 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23145.04 1100.70 2431.00 (elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT) Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone? M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Scheduling changes in -mm tree
I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least *something* in your tree isn't ... Kernbench: ElapsedSystem User CPU elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24146.60 1117.61 2516.67 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27141.14 1099.91 2374.33 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88142.41 1104.85 2403.67 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23145.04 1100.70 2431.00 (elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT) Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone? M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Scheduling changes in -mm tree
Martin J. Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least *something* in your tree isn't ... Kernbench: ElapsedSystem User CPU elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24146.60 1117.61 2516.67 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27141.14 1099.91 2374.33 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88142.41 1104.85 2403.67 elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23145.04 1100.70 2431.00 (elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT) Sounds like the CPU scheduler, yes Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone? Nick has tossed out and redone all the scheduler patches from -mm4, but I assume it's all pretty much the same. At http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/mbligh.gz is a rollup (against 2.6.12-rc1) of sched2-fix-schedstats-warning.patch sched2-cleanup-wake_idle.patch sched2-improve-load-balancing-pinned-tasks.patch sched2-reduce-active-load-balancing.patch sched2-fix-smt-scheduling-problems.patch sched2-add-debugging.patch sched2-less-aggressive-idle-balancing.patch sched2-balance-timers.patch sched2-tweak-affine-wakeups.patch sched2-no-aggressive-idle-balancing.patch sched2-balance-on-fork.patch sched2-schedstats-update-for-balance-on-fork.patch sched2-sched-tuning.patch sched2-sched-domain-sysctl.patch add-do_proc_doulonglongvec_minmax-to-sysctl-functions.patch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
