From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030476AbXDUIeS (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:34:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030580AbXDUIeS (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:34:18 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:57107 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030476AbXDUIeQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:34:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:33:43 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Nick Piggin , Bill Huey , Mike Galbraith , Peter Williams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck list , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] Message-ID: <20070421083343.GB29800@elte.hu> References: <20070413202100.GA9957@elte.hu> <200704151327.13589.kernel@kolivas.org> <1176619384.6222.70.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <46240F98.3020800@bigpond.net.au> <1176776941.6222.21.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <20070417034050.GD25513@wotan.suse.de> <1176782489.13059.15.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <20070417041420.GF25513@wotan.suse.de> <20070417095140.GB22626@elte.hu> <462926DF.1030404@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <462926DF.1030404@tmr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Bill Davidsen wrote: > All of my testing has been on desktop machines, although in most cases > they were really loaded desktops which had load avg 10..100 from time > to time, and none were low memory machines. Up to CFS v3 I thought > nicksched was my winner, now CFSv3 looks better, by not having > stumbles under stupid loads. nice! I hope CFSv4 kept that good tradition too ;) > I have not tested: > 1 - server loads, nntp, smtp, etc > 2 - low memory machines > 3 - uniprocessor systems > > I think this should be done before drawing conclusions. Or if someone > has tried this, perhaps they would report what they saw. People are > talking about smoothness, but not how many pages per second come out > of their overloaded web server. i tested heavily swapping systems. (make -j50 workloads easily trigger that) I also tested UP systems and a handful of SMP systems. I have also tested massive_intr.c which i believe is an indicator of how fairly CPU time is distributed between partly sleeping partly running server threads. But i very much agree that diverse feedback is sought and welcome, both from those who are happy with the current scheduler and those who are unhappy about it. Ingo