From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v7
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:24:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3070000.1061868247@[10.10.2.4]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3F49E7D1.4000309@cyberone.com.au>
> I didn't miss 5 revisions, I'll just stick to using my internal
> numbering for releases.
>
> This one has a few changes. Children now get a priority boost
> on fork, and parents retain more priority after forking a child,
> however exiting CPU hogs will now penalise parents a bit.
>
> Timeslice scaling was tweaked a bit. Oh and remember raising X's
> priority should _help_ interactivity with this patch, and IMO is
> not an unreasonable thing to be doing.
>
> Please test. I'm not getting enough feedback!
Well, it's actually a bit faster than either mainline or your previous
rev whilst running SDET:
SDET 128 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.6.0-test4 100.0% 0.3%
2.6.0-test4-nick 102.9% 0.3%
2.6.0-test4-nick7a 105.1% 0.5%
But kernbench is significantly slower. The increase in sys time has
dropped from last time, but user time is up.
Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.6.0-test4 45.87 116.92 571.10 1499.00
2.6.0-test4-nick 49.37 131.31 611.15 1500.75
2.6.0-test4-nick7a 49.48 125.95 617.71 1502.00
diffprofile {2.6.0-test4,2.6.0-test4-nick7a}/kernbench/0/profile
13989 8.6% total
4402 9.6% default_idle
3385 14.4% page_remove_rmap
1093 13.8% __d_lookup
702 5.0% do_anonymous_page
613 11.5% __copy_to_user_ll
613 32.9% atomic_dec_and_lock
565 40.9% free_hot_cold_page
322 18.7% buffered_rmqueue
296 9.4% zap_pte_range
282 75.6% .text.lock.file_table
185 11.4% kmem_cache_free
183 9.8% path_lookup
164 12.2% link_path_walk
154 12.7% release_pages
152 43.1% pgd_ctor
127 33.0% file_kill
126 15.8% pte_alloc_one
123 10.4% file_move
107 75.4% .text.lock.dcache
...
-59 -9.5% copy_process
-94 -22.5% release_task
-146 -2.3% page_add_rmap
-352 -24.7% schedule
-1026 -29.4% __copy_from_user_ll
Not sure why you're beating up on rmap so much more from a scheduler
change.
diffprofile {2.6.0-test4,2.6.0-test4-nick7a}/sdetbench/128/profile
513 19.1% .text.lock.filemap
246 2.6% find_get_page
150 4.4% copy_mm
86 46.0% try_to_wake_up
82 24.1% kunmap_high
76 0.0% sched_fork
74 0.5% copy_page_range
67 1.1% do_no_page
54 17.3% __pagevec_lru_add_active
53 10.2% radix_tree_lookup
51 7.4% __wake_up
...
-101 -8.6% __block_prepare_write
-105 -65.2% release_blocks
-108 -4.7% link_path_walk
-112 -15.2% mmgrab
-116 -5.5% buffered_rmqueue
-118 -5.9% path_release
-119 -2.9% do_wp_page
-125 -3.9% pte_alloc_one
-125 -15.6% proc_pid_status
-127 -5.5% free_hot_cold_page
-132 -10.2% exit_notify
-138 -11.7% __read_lock_failed
-146 -9.7% number
-154 -28.5% proc_check_root
-155 -20.9% proc_root_link
-176 -10.3% d_alloc
-179 -13.6% task_mem
-186 -9.8% .text.lock.dcache
-186 -7.6% proc_pid_stat
-193 -11.1% ext2_new_inode
-230 -4.0% kmem_cache_free
-239 -8.2% .text.lock.dec_and_lock
-244 -11.5% schedule
-250 -38.3% __blk_queue_bounce
-257 -15.0% current_kernel_time
-307 -17.6% release_task
-327 -1.8% zap_pte_range
-338 -7.7% clear_page_tables
-384 -20.7% lookup_mnt
-406 -26.5% __find_get_block
-412 -18.5% follow_mount
-565 -9.7% path_lookup
-729 -11.6% atomic_dec_and_lock
-865 -46.1% grab_block
-1185 -10.5% __d_lookup
-2145 -0.5% default_idle
-2786 -7.0% page_add_rmap
-12702 -14.2% page_remove_rmap
-29467 -3.8% total
Again, rmap and dlookup. Very odd. Some sort of locality thing, I guess.
M.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-26 3:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-24 12:35 [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy Nick Piggin
2003-08-24 14:29 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-25 3:05 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-25 22:30 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-08-24 16:55 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-08-25 3:00 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-25 10:41 ` [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v7 Nick Piggin
2003-08-25 11:03 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-25 14:36 ` Måns Rullgård
2003-08-26 3:24 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2003-08-26 4:04 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-26 9:44 ` Yaroslav Rastrigin
2003-08-27 9:28 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-25 3:27 ` [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy Randy.Dunlap
2003-08-25 3:36 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-26 3:16 ` Mike Fedyk
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='3070000.1061868247@[10.10.2.4]' \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
/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).