Re: [PATCH 2.5.53] NUMA scheduler (1/3)

[Michael Hohnbaum]

On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 22:07, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> > Kernbench:
> >> >                         Elapsed       User     System        CPU
> >> >              sched50     29.96s   288.308s    83.606s    1240.8%
> >> >              sched52    29.836s   285.832s    84.464s    1240.4%
> >> >              sched53    29.364s   284.808s    83.174s    1252.6%
> >> >              stock50    31.074s   303.664s    89.194s    1264.2%
> >> >              stock53    31.204s   306.224s    87.776s    1263.2%
> >
> > sched50 = linux 2.5.50 with the NUMA scheduler
> > sched52 = linux 2.5.52 with the NUMA scheduler
> > sched53 = linux 2.5.53 with the NUMA scheduler
> > stock50 = linux 2.5.50 without the NUMA scheduler
> > stock53 = linux 2.5.53 without the NUMA scheduler
> 
> I was doing a slightly different test - Erich's old sched code vs the new
> both on 2.5.54, and seem to have a degredation.
> 
> M.

Martin,

I ran 2.5.54 with an older version of Erich's NUMA scheduler and
with the version sent out for 2.5.53.  Results were similar:

Kernbench:
                        Elapsed       User     System        CPU
             sched54    29.112s   283.888s     82.84s    1259.4%
          oldsched54    29.436s   286.942s    82.722s    1256.2%

sched54 = linux 2.5.54 with the 2.5.53 version of the NUMA scheduler
oldsched54 = linux 2.5.54 with an earlier version of the NUMA scheduler

The numbers for the new version are actually a touch better, but
close enough to be within a reasonable margin of error. 

I'll post numbers against stock 2.5.54 and include schedbench, tomorrow.

               Michael

-- 
Michael Hohnbaum            503-578-5486
[e-mail]         T/L 775-5486