Re: call for more SD versus CFS comparisons (was: Re: [ck] Mainline plans)

["Tobias Gerschner" <tobias.gerschner@gmail.com>]

2007/6/12, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:
>
> * Tobias Gerschner <tobias.gerschner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I did run massive_intr.c for 60 secs with increasing nproc (
> > 10,20,30,40,50,60) waiting for effects.
> >
> > Below a small table of the results
> >
> > 2.6.21.1-cfs-v16
> >
> > nproc ,  usability result
> >
> > 10 , serious frame drops , Firefox  hardly recognizes clicked links,
> > but still usable
> > 20 - 30, usability loss ( somehow under cfs firefox never finished
> > user requests like displaying web pages or opening new pages , no
> > feedback anymore, sudden changes on the desktop )
>
> ouch! The expected load-testing result under CFS should be something
> like this:
>
>    http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2007-June/007817.html
>
> could you send me the output of /proc/sched_debug? (while say a
> "massive_intr 20" is running?)
>
> Roughly what hardware do you have? (could you send me your lspci -v
> output and dmesg output?)
>
>         Ingo
>

Hi,

it's a peacock freeliner xp II. Close to 5 year old Laptop with an
Athlon XP 2600+ using 1 GB of RAM / no swap enabled.

The other information will be sent as soon as I am back at work .

regards

-- 
Tobias Gerschner
Member of Board of Yoper Linux Ltd. NZ

Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.