Auto-Adaptive scheduler and semaphore patch ( 2.2.14 ) ...

[Ed Tomlinson]

Hi,

I posted these numbers since they help show that Davide's scheduler, on my
rather extreme, data point helps.  The goal of the program use is NOT to be
the fastest and most efficient.  Rather its to port a very usefull tool to
a very portable solution.  This puts stress on the context switching code 
in the various OSes (BTW NT is the fastest at this so far).

Instead of questioning the code I strongly suggest that more numbers are
gathered.  If this scheduler is faster in the common case, and will scale
better on loaded systems, then its a win. 

Lets get some numbers and see.

Ed Tomlinson <tomlins en cam.org>
http://www.cam.org/~tomlins/njpipes.html

Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> : So I gave it another try.  Here are three sets of numbers.  From
> : 2.2.15pre2, 2.2.15pre2 with scheduler patch, and 2.2.15pre4 with
> : adaptive scheduler patch.  The jist of the numbers is that, In my case
> : (threaded java), I see about 10% increase in perf.  Note that the number
> : of runnable tasks decrease with Davide's patch.  I seem to benifit from
> : the smart wakeup code...
> :
> : >From my point of view this is a winner.  What do other people's numbers
> : look like?
> 
> Umm, looking at your vmstat numbers, which say you are doing 88,000
> context switches/sec, or in other words, if the context switch itself
> took 0 time, each process is running all of 11.4 usecs before switching.
> Given that you are running loads of processes, it's not unreasonable to
> think that the context switch itself is taking 100% of that 11.4 usecs.
> 
> How many times does this need to be said?  This is an irrelevant
> data point.  I don't care if you see a 100% improvement in this case.
> It's a stupid test case.  Under no circumstances would I trade off even
> a 1% improvement in this case for some much as one more cache miss in
> the scheduler.  It's just silly.
> 
> This game is like talking about how much smoother you can make your
> engine run at 110,000 RPM, while merrily ignoring that (a) you never
> run your engine at 110,000 RPM, and (b) the supposed improvemnt gives
> you worse gas mileage at 4,000 RPM, where you spend all your time.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo en vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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