This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Last revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| ulevs4bsd [2013/06/28 21:42] – Temporarily wipe images peterjeremy | ulevs4bsd [2013/06/29 06:36] – Insert corrected graphs peterjeremy | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| {{cpu_1.png|V890 CPU Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | {{cpu_1.png|V890 CPU Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | ||
| - | {{xcpu_1.png|Xeon CPU Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | ||
| shows that ULE is very slightly more efficient than 4BSD and (pleasingly) that the amount of CPU time taken to perform a task is independent of the number of active processes for either scheduler. | shows that ULE is very slightly more efficient than 4BSD and (pleasingly) that the amount of CPU time taken to perform a task is independent of the number of active processes for either scheduler. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{xcpu_1.png|Xeon CPU Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | shows | ||
| {{wall_1.png|V890 Elapsed Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | {{wall_1.png|V890 Elapsed Time with 1KiB Working Set}} | ||
| Line 38: | Line 41: | ||
| {{eff_1.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 1KiB Working set}} | {{eff_1.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 1KiB Working set}} | ||
| - | {{eff_1.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 1KiB Working set}} | + | {{yeff_1.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 1KiB Working set}} |
| This graph shows scheduler efficiency as a ratio of wallclock time to CPU time. | This graph shows scheduler efficiency as a ratio of wallclock time to CPU time. | ||
| Line 56: | Line 59: | ||
| Between 17 and about 40 proceses, ULE uses significantly less CPU than ULE. | Between 17 and about 40 proceses, ULE uses significantly less CPU than ULE. | ||
| Beyond about 48 processes, 4BSD again takes the lead. | Beyond about 48 processes, 4BSD again takes the lead. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| {{wall_4.png|V890 Elapsed Time with 4MiB Working Set}} | {{wall_4.png|V890 Elapsed Time with 4MiB Working Set}} | ||
| Line 64: | Line 69: | ||
| {{eff_4.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 4MiB Working set}} | {{eff_4.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 4MiB Working set}} | ||
| - | {{eff_4.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 4MiB Working set}} | + | {{yeff_4.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 4MiB Working set}} |
| The 4BSD scheduler maintains a fairly constant effeciency, with only a slight bump between 4 and 12 processes. | The 4BSD scheduler maintains a fairly constant effeciency, with only a slight bump between 4 and 12 processes. | ||
| Line 86: | Line 91: | ||
| {{eff_32.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 32MiB Working set}} | {{eff_32.png|V890 Scheduler efficiency with 32MiB Working set}} | ||
| - | {{eff_32.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 32MiB Working set}} | + | {{yeff_32.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiency with 32MiB Working set}} |
| The 4BSD scheduler maintains a fairly constant effeciency, with a slight bump between about 16 and 32 processes. | The 4BSD scheduler maintains a fairly constant effeciency, with a slight bump between about 16 and 32 processes. | ||
| Line 105: | Line 110: | ||
| {{xwall.png|Xeon Elapsed Times}} | {{xwall.png|Xeon Elapsed Times}} | ||
| - | {{eff.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiencies}} | + | {{yeff.png|Xeon Scheduler efficiencies}}l0 |