From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030621AbXDUKii (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:38:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030622AbXDUKii (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:38:38 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:39044 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030621AbXDUKih (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:38:37 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:38:30 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Willy Tarreau Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] Message-ID: <20070421103830.GA16836@elte.hu> References: <20070414064334.GA19463@elte.hu> <20070414080833.GL943@1wt.eu> <20070414083625.GM943@1wt.eu> <20070414105338.GB19454@elte.hu> <20070414130101.GA2538@1wt.eu> <20070419090144.GA17100@elte.hu> <20070419125438.GA27584@1wt.eu> <20070419151803.GB30959@elte.hu> <20070419184534.GA29096@1wt.eu> <20070421103129.GA12621@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070421103129.GA12621@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > The modified code is here : > > > > http://linux.1wt.eu/sched/orbitclock-0.2bench.tgz > > > > What is interesting to note is that it's easy to make X work a lot > > (99%) by using 0 as the sleeping time, and it's easy to make the > > process work a lot by using large values for the running time > > associated with very low values (or 0) for the sleep time. > > > > Ah, and it supports -geometry ;-) > > > > It could become a useful scheduler benchmark ! > > i just tried ocbench-0.3, and it is indeed very nice! another thing i just noticed: when starting up lots of ocbench tasks (say -x 6 -y 6) then they (naturally) get started up with an already visible offset. It's nice to observe the startup behavior, but after that it would be useful if it were possible to 'resync' all those ocbench tasks so that they start at the same offset. [ Maybe a "killall -SIGUSR1 ocbench" could serve this purpose, without having to synchronize the tasks explicitly? ] Ingo