From: Mike Kravetz <mkravetz@sequent.com>
To: lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: multi-queue scheduler update
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:35:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010119153521.K26968@w-mikek.des.sequent.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010118155311.B8637@w-mikek.des.sequent.com> <20010119012616.D32087@athlon.random>
In-Reply-To: <20010119012616.D32087@athlon.random>; from andrea@suse.de on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:26:16AM +0100
As promised, here are some numbers for low thread counts from the
benchmark Andrew and Davide provided. I ran the benchmark for
1,2,4 and 8 threads. I ran the test 5 times for each thread count
and used 60 seconds as the measure time in each case.
2.4.0
-----
1 1785408 1785408 0 0.000000
1 1786130 1786130 0 0.000000
1 1786156 1786156 0 0.000000
1 1781575 1781575 0 0.000000
1 1780079 1780079 0 0.000000
2 1873405 936702 0 0.000000
2 2006473 1003236 0 0.000001
2 1953842 976921 0 0.000004
2 1951338 975669 0 0.000000
2 1887887 943943 0 0.000004
4 1936350 484087 0 0.000055
4 1814430 453607 0 0.000087
4 1972681 493170 0 0.000055
4 1951748 487937 0 0.000206
4 1862182 465545 0 0.000283
8 2917216 364652 0 0.000008
8 2655834 331979 0 0.000018
8 3026734 378341 0 0.000005
8 3010204 376275 0 0.000004
8 2569647 321205 0 0.000014
2.4.0-multi-queue
-----------------
1 1295498 1295498 0 0.000000
1 1295011 1295011 0 0.000000
1 1296768 1296768 0 0.000000
1 1296053 1296053 0 0.000000
1 1296472 1296472 0 0.000000
2 1999043 999521 0 0.000000
2 1410636 705318 0 0.000000
2 1414476 707238 0 0.000000
2 2014664 1007332 0 0.000001
2 1414509 707254 0 0.000000
4 2046182 511545 0 0.000232
4 2101535 525383 0 0.000115
4 2094828 523707 0 0.000155
4 2097406 524351 0 0.000144
4 2057331 514332 0 0.000132
8 3795829 474478 0 0.000185
8 4058329 507291 0 0.001871
8 3845934 480741 0 0.000248
8 3715243 464405 0 0.000084
8 3777303 472162 0 0.000194
As expected the single thread numbers for the multi-queue scheduler
are not as good as those of the existing scheduler. However, at 2
threads it is getting pretty close and from 4 threads up, the
multi-queue scheduler does better.
In this multi-queue implementation, the amount of overhead is
related to the number of processors in the system. Therefore,
I would expect the numbers to 'be better' for low thread counts
on systems with lower (<8) processor counts. It would be
interesting to see if the point at which the multi-queue does
better stays at aprox CPUs/2 as we change system configurations.
Hopefully we will have some more extensive benchmark results in
the not too distant future. Until then, we'll be looking into
optimizations to help out the multi-queue scheduler at low
thread counts.
--
Mike Kravetz mkravetz@sequent.com
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-01-19 23:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-01-18 23:53 Mike Kravetz
2001-01-19 0:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-01-19 0:51 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2001-01-19 1:14 ` John Clemens
2001-01-19 0:52 ` [Lse-tech] " Mike Kravetz
2001-01-19 1:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-01-19 1:34 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-01-19 20:49 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-01-19 21:51 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-01-19 22:03 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-01-19 22:18 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-01-19 23:24 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-01-19 1:39 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-01-19 16:06 ` David Lang
2001-01-19 1:00 ` Mark Hahn
2001-01-19 1:08 ` Andi Kleen
2001-01-19 1:23 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-01-19 1:38 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-01-19 1:35 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-01-19 1:48 ` Andi Kleen
2001-01-19 23:35 ` Mike Kravetz [this message]
2001-01-19 0:43 ` Gerhard Mack
2001-01-23 16:49 ` [Lse-tech] " Jun Nakajima
[not found] ` <LYR76657-1923-2001.01.23-08.54.49--mikek#sequent.com@lyris.sequent.com>
2001-01-23 17:08 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-01-21 17:49 Jesse Pollard
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=20010119153521.K26968@w-mikek.des.sequent.com \
--to=mkravetz@sequent.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®