From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] O6int for interactivity
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:34:24 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3F1794F0.1090803@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20030718071656.01af84d0@pop.gmx.net>
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> At 03:12 PM 7/16/2003 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
>> http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/irman2.c
>>
>> and run it with different -n (number of tasks) and -b (CPU burn ms
>> time).
>> At the same time try to build a kernel for example. Then you will
>> realize
>> that interactivity is not the bigger problem that the scheduler has
>> right
>> now.
>
>
> I added an irman2 load to contest. Con's changes 06+06.1 stomped it
> flat [1]. irman2 is modified to run for 30s at a time, but with
> default parameters.
>
> -Mike
>
> [1] imho a little too flat. it also made a worrisome impression on
> apache bench
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>no_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.69 1 153 94.8 0.0 0.0 1.00
>2.5.70 1 153 94.1 0.0 0.0 1.00
>2.6.0-test1 1 153 94.1 0.0 0.0 1.00
>2.6.0-test1-mm1 1 152 94.7 0.0 0.0 1.00
>cacherun:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.69 1 146 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.95
>2.5.70 1 146 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.95
>2.6.0-test1 1 146 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.95
>2.6.0-test1-mm1 1 146 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.96
>process_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.69 1 331 43.8 90.0 55.3 2.16
>2.5.70 1 199 72.4 27.0 25.5 1.30
>2.6.0-test1 1 264 54.5 61.0 44.3 1.73
>2.6.0-test1-mm1 1 323 44.9 88.0 54.2 2.12
>ctar_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.69 1 190 77.9 0.0 0.0 1.24
>2.5.70 1 186 80.1 0.0 0.0 1.22
>2.6.0-test1 1 213 70.4 0.0 0.0 1.39
>2.6.0-test1-mm1 1 207 72.5 0.0 0.0 1.36
>xtar_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.69 1 196 75.0 0.0 3.1 1.28
>2.5.70 1 195 75.9 0.0 3.1 1.27
>2.6.0-test1 1 193 76.7 1.0 4.1 1.26
>2.6.0-test1-mm1 1 195 75.9 1.0 4.1 1.28
>io_load:
>Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
>2.5.69 1 437 34.6 69.1 15.1 2.86
>2.5.70 1 401 37.7 72.3 17.4 2.62
>2.6.0-test1 1 243 61.3 48.1 17.3 1.59
>2.6.0-test1-mm1 1 336 44.9 64.5 17.3 2.21
>
Looks like gcc is getting less priority after a read completes.
Keep an eye on this please.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-07-18 6:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-07-16 14:30 [PATCH] O6int for interactivity Con Kolivas
2003-07-16 15:22 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-07-16 19:55 ` Marc-Christian Petersen
2003-07-16 17:08 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-07-16 21:59 ` Wiktor Wodecki
2003-07-16 22:30 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-16 22:12 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-17 0:33 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-17 0:35 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-17 1:12 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-17 0:48 ` Wade
2003-07-17 1:15 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-17 1:27 ` Eugene Teo
2003-07-17 3:05 ` Wes Janzen
2003-07-17 9:05 ` Alex Riesen
2003-07-17 9:14 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-18 7:38 ` Alex Riesen
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307251628500.26172-300000@localhost.localdomain>
2003-07-25 19:40 ` Alex Riesen
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.55.0307161241280.4787@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.co m>
2003-07-18 5:38 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-07-18 6:34 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2003-07-18 10:18 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-07-18 10:31 ` Wiktor Wodecki
2003-07-18 10:43 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-18 11:34 ` Wiktor Wodecki
2003-07-18 11:38 ` Nick Piggin
2003-07-19 10:59 ` Wiktor Wodecki
2003-07-18 15:46 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-07-18 16:52 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-18 17:05 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-18 17:39 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-07-18 19:31 ` Davide Libenzi
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.55.0307181038450.5608@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.co m>
2003-07-18 20:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-07-18 20:38 ` Davide Libenzi
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.55.0307181333520.5608@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.co m>
2003-07-19 17:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-07-21 0:21 ` Davide Libenzi
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.55.0307201715130.3548@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.co m>
2003-07-21 5:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-07-21 12:39 ` [NOTAPATCH] " Mike Galbraith
2003-07-21 17:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-07-18 14:24 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-18 15:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-07-18 13:46 ` Davide Libenzi
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.55.0307180630450.5077@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.co m>
2003-07-18 15:41 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.55.0307180951050.5608@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.co m>
2003-07-18 18:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-07-16 20:20 Shane Shrybman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3F1794F0.1090803@cyberone.com.au \
--to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.