Re: 2.6.4-mm2
From: Mary Edie Meredith <hidden>
Date: 2004-03-24 00:11:19
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 11:32, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mary Edie Meredith [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
36% regression due to the CPU scheduler changes? ow.> > And that machine is a PIII, so presumably the setting of CONFIG_SCHED_SMT > makes no difference. > > >From a quick look at the material you have there it appears that this > workload also is very I/O bound. It's a little surprising that the CPU > scheduler could make so much difference. I'm not sure why you think this is IO bound. For the throughput phase of the test (from which the metric above is taken) there is very little physical IO except at the start when the updates occur. They finish in a few minutes, after which there is very little. http://khack.osdl.org/stp/290304/results/plot/thuput.vmstat_io.png http://khack.osdl.org/stp/290304/results/plot/thuput.vmstat.txtThere seems to be a large amount of idle time in the profiles and in the vmstat trace.
Yes. There is considerably more idle time in the bad run: Good one: http://khack.osdl.org/stp/290298/results/plot/thuput.sar_cpu_all.png Bad one: http://khack.osdl.org/stp/290304/results/plot/thuput.sar_cpu_all.png I am concerned with the drop in CPU utilization relative to the other run. -- Mary Edie Meredith maryedie@osdl.org 503-626-2455 x42 Open Source Development Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
