From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265101AbTFCQxY (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:53:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265107AbTFCQxX (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:53:23 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:48893 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265101AbTFCQwZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:52:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 100Hz preempt v nopreempt contest results From: Robert Love To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux kernel mailing list , Zwane Mwaikambo In-Reply-To: <200306031639.49515.kernel@kolivas.org> References: <200306031639.49515.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1054659956.633.85.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.3.92 (1.3.92-1) (Preview Release) Date: 03 Jun 2003 10:05:58 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 23:39, Con Kolivas wrote: > Note this time the ratio is less useful since they are both 100Hz. The > difference this time shows a large preempt improvement in process_load much > like 1000Hz did. Interestingly, even unloaded kernels no_load and cache_load > runs are faster with preempt. Only in xtar_load (repeatedly extracting a tar > with multiple small files) was no preempt faster. Thanks for running these, Con. I think this is an example of kernel preemption doing exactly what we want it to (improve interactive performance)... probably primarily because of the more accurate timeslice distribution. Would be interested to figure out why xtar_load is slower. Robert Love