LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <>
To: Michael Gerdau <>
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Nick Piggin <>,
	Gene Heskett <>,
	Juliusz Chroboczek <>,
	Mike Galbraith <>,
	Peter Williams <>,
	ck list <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	William Lee Irwin III <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Bill Davidsen <>, Willy Tarreau <>,
	Arjan van de Ven <>
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v6-rc2 vs sd-0.46 vs 2.6.21-rc7
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:55:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

* Michael Gerdau <> wrote:

> In general sd tends to finish all three such jobs at roughly the same 
> time while cfs clearly "favors" the LTMM-type jobs (which admittedly 
> involve the least computations). I don't really know why that is so.

for the reason of this, look at the raw user runtimes the 3 jobs have:

  5498.128  secs            # LTMM
  7559.777  secs
  7600.179  secs

the "perfect scheduler" would run each of the jobs at 33.33% of capacity 
for ~5500 CPU-seconds, and would then run the remaining two jobs at 
50.0% capacity for about ~2075 CPU-seconds.

Why? Because the scheduler how no idea how much each job takes! So a 
fair scheduler would run: 3 jobs at 33.33% capacity for as long as the 
shortest job ends, then the remaining 2 jobs at 50% capacity for as the 
shorter one of the remaining 2 finishes, and the remaining one at 100%.

in your case that means that the best scheduling would be roughly the 
following ideal timeline:

   5500*3 / 2 ==  8250 seconds for the LTMM to finish
   2075*2 / 2 == +2075 more seconds for the other two jobs to finish.

the various runs showed the following wallclock-time timeline for the 
LTMM phase:

   CFS #1:  real    142m56.806s
   CFS #2:  real    125m58.235s
   SD:      real    140m16.127s
   vanilla: real    133m50.274s

the "ideal" is ~137 minutes (8250 seconds) for the LTMM phase. The 
closest was indeed SD, but vanilla and cfs #1 wasnt too far away from it 
either. [ and the variance between CFS #1 and #2 seems to suggest that 
the noise of this particular metric is significant. The average does 
come in at 134.5, which is quite close to the ideal number. ]


  reply	other threads:[~2007-04-26 13:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-04-26 11:12 Michael Gerdau
2007-04-26 12:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-04-26 13:22   ` Michael Gerdau
2007-04-26 13:55     ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2007-04-26 22:59   ` [ck] " Con Kolivas
2007-04-27  5:59     ` Michael Gerdau
2007-04-27  6:52     ` Ingo Molnar

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [REPORT] cfs-v6-rc2 vs sd-0.46 vs 2.6.21-rc7' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).