From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753866AbXC3PL4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:11:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753508AbXC3PL4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:11:56 -0400 Received: from web26701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.146.176.64]:38282 "HELO web26701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753867AbXC3PLz (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:11:55 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 401 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:11:55 EDT DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.gr; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=Lc6bWryU2SB0ZiBOa/GZ4GbBySrNDMLTfAvGchOiyxCPesn/Fta03yq4U87Oj88BwF9rp2C/Bt7TJyjqVY4w2GFO+cDSQeyTzjSAkEYtmm5aaubZUR2WtjmxXT1/gCnek2U00MTxLExwJhLkGalUMkElko3qYwa4o+qFxGn6i64=; X-YMail-OSG: 4RyLqkcVM1knN2ZSPDl.pJjekHVAW7AoseQhsdVz0EB2WSJEBE0GfjjRWh2V4.w3uJj4I11dooZkaCtx_NGoQdk- X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/476 YahooMailWebService/0.7.41.8 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:05:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Xenofon Antidides Subject: Re: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL To: Ingo Molnar , Con Kolivas Cc: linux list , Andrew Morton , Mike Galbraith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Message-ID: <325618.89505.qm@web26701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ---- From: Ingo Molnar To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux list ; Andrew Morton ; Mike Galbraith Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:22:49 PM Subject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL * Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Con Kolivas wrote: > > > I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix > > wedge now. [...] > and the numbers he posted: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117448900626028&w=2 We been staring at these numbers for while now and we come to the conclusion they wrong. The test is f is 3 tasks, two on different and one on same cpu as sh here: virgin 2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp top - 13:52:50 up 7 min, 12 users, load average: 3.45, 2.89, 1.51 PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND 6560 root 31 0 2892 1236 1032 R 82 0.1 1:50.24 1 sh 6558 root 28 0 1428 276 228 S 42 0.0 1:00.09 1 f 6557 root 30 0 1424 280 228 R 35 0.0 1:00.25 0 f 6559 root 39 0 1424 276 228 R 33 0.0 0:58.36 0 f 6560 sh is asking for 100% cpu on cpu number 1 6558 f is asking for 50% cpu on cpu number 1 6557 f is asking for 50% cpu on cpu number 0 6559 f is asking for 50% cpu on cpu number 0 So if 6560 and 6558 are asking for cpu from cpu number 1: 6560 wants 100% and 6558 wants 50%. 6560 should get 2/3 cpu 6558 should get 1/3 cpu 2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp gives 65% sh and 35% f patched 2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp gives 60% sh and 40% f 2.6.20.3-smp gives 51% sh and 49% f We think cpu correctness is 2.6.21-rc3-rsdl-smp in that test. Xant ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367