| From | Nikos Chantziaras <> | Subject | Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements | Date | Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:12:15 +0300 |
| |
On 09/07/2009 12:49 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > [...] > And I have to apologize for using a large system to test this on, I > realize it's out of the scope of BFS, but it's just easier to fire one > of these beasts up than it is to sacrifice my notebook or desktop > machine...
How does a kernel rebuild constitute "sacrifice"?
> So it's a 64 thread box. CFS -jX runtime is the baseline at > 100, lower number means faster and vice versa. The latency numbers are > in msecs. > > > Scheduler Runtime Max lat Avg lat Std dev > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > CFS 100 951 462 267 > CFS-x2 100 983 484 308 > BFS > BFS-x2 > > And unfortunately this is where it ends for now, since BFS doesn't boot > on the two boxes I tried.
Then who post this in the first place?
|