BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 7, 2009 10:35 UTC (Mon) by mb (subscriber, #50428)
Parent article: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

These are the kernbench results for bfs-209 on a 4-way SMP.
BFS is about 8% faster in this test here, as far as I can tell.

mb@homer:~/linux/test/linux-2.6.30$ cat kernbench-cfs.log
Sun Sep 6 12:36:20 CEST 2009
2.6.30.5
Average Half load -j 3 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 737.527 (0.39501)
User Time 2031.15 (0.38175)
System Time 168.603 (0.166233)
Percent CPU 298 (0)
Context Switches 85408 (878.425)
Sleeps 97395 (115.724)

Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 611.893 (0.462313)
User Time 2035.69 (4.97924)
System Time 169.565 (1.05992)
Percent CPU 329.333 (34.3259)
Context Switches 103275 (19596.7)
Sleeps 97440.5 (121.078)

mb@homer:~/linux/test/linux-2.6.30$ cat kernbench-bfs.log
Sun Sep 6 15:14:08 CEST 2009
2.6.30.5-bfs
Average Half load -j 3 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 728.563 (0.448144)
User Time 2031.75 (0.640494)
System Time 171.72 (0.167033)
Percent CPU 302 (0)
Context Switches 35229 (6473.67)
Sleeps 113467 (118.95)

Average Optimal load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 563.54 (0.32078)
User Time 2039.38 (8.36488)
System Time 173.375 (1.81625)
Percent CPU 348 (50.3905)
Context Switches 79741.5 (48946.2)
Sleeps 108397 (5554.48)

to post comments

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 7, 2009 12:56 UTC (Mon) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (1 responses)

Mind testing the latest mainline scheduler as well?

You can find the latest scheduler development code in the latest -tip tree.

Thanks!

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 7, 2009 15:43 UTC (Mon) by mb (subscriber, #50428) [Link]

I'll test it soon, thanks!
I already downloaded and compiled it. I think I'll run the tests tomorrow.