Re: [PATCH 2.5.53] NUMA scheduler (1/3)

From: Michael Hohnbaum (hohnbaum@us.ibm.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 21:23:34 EST

On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 22:07, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> > Kernbench:
> >> > Elapsed User System CPU
> >> > sched50 29.96s 288.308s 83.606s 1240.8%
> >> > sched52 29.836s 285.832s 84.464s 1240.4%
> >> > sched53 29.364s 284.808s 83.174s 1252.6%
> >> > stock50 31.074s 303.664s 89.194s 1264.2%
> >> > stock53 31.204s 306.224s 87.776s 1263.2%
> >
> > sched50 = linux 2.5.50 with the NUMA scheduler
> > sched52 = linux 2.5.52 with the NUMA scheduler
> > sched53 = linux 2.5.53 with the NUMA scheduler
> > stock50 = linux 2.5.50 without the NUMA scheduler
> > stock53 = linux 2.5.53 without the NUMA scheduler
>
> I was doing a slightly different test - Erich's old sched code vs the new
> both on 2.5.54, and seem to have a degredation.
>
> M.

Martin,

I ran 2.5.54 with an older version of Erich's NUMA scheduler and
with the version sent out for 2.5.53. Results were similar:

Kernbench:
                        Elapsed User System CPU
             sched54 29.112s 283.888s 82.84s 1259.4%
          oldsched54 29.436s 286.942s 82.722s 1256.2%

sched54 = linux 2.5.54 with the 2.5.53 version of the NUMA scheduler
oldsched54 = linux 2.5.54 with an earlier version of the NUMA scheduler

The numbers for the new version are actually a touch better, but
close enough to be within a reasonable margin of error.

I'll post numbers against stock 2.5.54 and include schedbench, tomorrow.

               Michael 

-- 
Michael Hohnbaum            503-578-5486
hohnbaum@us.ibm.com         T/L 775-5486

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:00:34 EST