From: Craig Thomas <craiger@osdl.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Prcess scheduler Imiprovements in 2.6.0-test9
Date: 05 Dec 2003 10:55:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1070650522.13254.28.camel@bullpen.pdx.osdl.net> (raw)
OSDL has been running peformance tests with hackbench to measure the
improvment of the scheduler, compared with LInux 2.4.18. We ran the
test on our Scalable Test Platform on different system sizes. The
results obtained seem to show that the 2.6 scheduler is more
efficient and allows for greater scalability on larger systems.
See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100805466304516&w=2
for a description of hackbench.
The set of data below shows an average time of five hackbench runs
for each set of groups. Linux 2.6.0-test9 clearly shows significan
improvement in the completion times.
Test set 1: Performance of hackbench
(times are in seconds, lower number is better)
number of groups 50 100 150 200
--------------------------------------------------
1 CPU
2.4.18 15.52 37.63 74.34 110.62
2.6.0-test9 9.91 17.86 27.55 39.77
--------------------------------------------------
2 CPUs
2.4.18 10.50 30.42 64.26 112.46
2.6.0-test9 7.44 13.45 19.68 26.68
--------------------------------------------------
4 CPUs
2.4.18 7.07 22.75 54.10 101.45
2.6.0-test9 5.16 9.25 13.64 18.65
--------------------------------------------------
8 CPUs
2.4.18 7.02 24.63 61.48 114.93
2.6.0-test9 4.08 7.15 10.31 13.84
--------------------------------------------------
The set of data below shows how many groups can be run before the
system failed with some resouce limitiation having been exceeded.
The kernel was not tuned, so this tests a defalut configuration.
Test set 2: Max Groups Before Out of Resource
(maximum nuber of groups that completed a successful run; larger
numbers are better)
------------------------
1 CPU
2.4.18 200
2.6.0-test9 200
------------------------
2 CPUs
2.4.18 225
2.6.0-test9 350
------------------------
4 CPUs
2.4.18 225
2.6.0-test9 525
------------------------
8 CPUs
2.4.18 225
2.6.0-test9 425
------------------------
We have been running hackbench results up through 2.6.0-test11 and
we see no significant differences between test-11 and test9, so these
results should be valid for test-11 as well.
A write-up of these results (complete with graphical plots) is posted
at http://developer.osdl.org/craiger/hackbench/index.html
--
Craig Thomas
craiger@osdl.org
next reply other threads:[~2003-12-05 18:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-12-05 18:55 Craig Thomas [this message]
2003-12-06 10:50 ` Prcess scheduler Imiprovements in 2.6.0-test9 Nick Piggin
2003-12-06 17:49 ` Craig Thomas
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=1070650522.13254.28.camel@bullpen.pdx.osdl.net \
--to=craiger@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).