Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:36:42 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [quad core results] BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements |
| |
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:20:33 +0200 Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> wrote:
> On Monday 07 September 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > 4 cores, 8 threads. Which is basically the standard desktop cpu > > going forward... (4 cores already is today, 8 threads is that any > > day now) > > Despite that I'm personally more interested in what I have available > here *now*. And that's various UP Pentium systems, one dual core > Pentium D and Core Duo. > > I've been running BFS on my laptop today while doing CPU intensive > jobs (not disk intensive), and I must say that BFS does seem very > responsive. OTOH, I've also noticed some surprising things, such as > processors staying on lower frequencies while doing CPU-intensive > work. > > I feels like I have less of the mouse cursor and typing freezes I'm > used to with CFS, even when I'm *not* doing anything special. I've > been blaming those on still running with ordered mode ext3, but now > I'm starting to wonder. > > I'll try to do more structured testing, comparisons and measurements > later. At the very least it's nice to have something to compare > _with_. >
it's a shameless plug since I wrote it, but latencytop will be able to tell you what your bottleneck is... and that is very interesting to know, regardless of the "what scheduler code" discussion;
-- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org
| |