linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: Craig Thomas <craiger@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Prcess scheduler Imiprovements in 2.6.0-test9
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:50:38 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FD1B47E.3050600@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1070650522.13254.28.camel@bullpen.pdx.osdl.net>



Craig Thomas wrote:

>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
>--------------------------------------------------
>

Hi Craig,
The numbers here are very impressive. Is there is an easy way
to make a table of results like this with STP? What is the
exact parameter line you pass to hackbench to get this?
These are results from a run with my scheduler patch on the
8-way. Not sure if they're comparable but if so they are a
small improvement.

20 		1.69
40 		2.54
60 		3.41
80 		4.38
100 		5.44




  reply	other threads:[~2003-12-06 10:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-12-05 18:55 Prcess scheduler Imiprovements in 2.6.0-test9 Craig Thomas
2003-12-06 10:50 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
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=3FD1B47E.3050600@cyberone.com.au \
    --to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
    --cc=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).