Originally posted by perpetually high
View Post
Code:
ctx_clock: pts/ctx-clock-1.0.0 Test 1 of 1 Estimated Trial Run Count: 3 Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Minute [08:21 CEST] Started Run 1 @ 08:21:47 Started Run 2 @ 08:21:53 Started Run 3 @ 08:21:58 Started Run 4 @ 08:22:02 * Started Run 5 @ 08:22:07 * Started Run 6 @ 08:22:12 * Started Run 7 @ 08:22:17 * Started Run 8 @ 08:22:22 * Started Run 9 @ 08:22:27 * Started Run 10 @ 08:22:32 * Started Run 11 @ 08:22:37 * Started Run 12 @ 08:22:42 * Started Run 13 @ 08:22:47 * Started Run 14 @ 08:22:52 * Started Run 15 @ 08:22:57 * Context Switch Time: 248 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Average: 157 Clocks Deviation: 16.16% Samples: 15 Comparison to 3,672 OpenBenchmarking.org samples since 18 February 2019; median result: 259. Box plot of samples: [ |*--------------------------------------------------*-------#########*#*##!*#* *] This Result (70th Percentile): 157 ^ Intel Celeron J4115: 3201 ^ Intel Core i5-4690K: 1138 ^ Intel Core i5-1035G1: 68 ^ AMD Ryzen 5 2600: 256 ^ 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2696 v3: 415 ^ 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4: 476 ^
Core Count: 4
Thread Count: 8
Extensions: SSE 4.2 + AVX2 + AVX + RDRAND + FSGSBASE
Cache Size: 6 MB
Microcode: 0x28
Core Family: Haswell
Scaling Driver: intel_cpufreq performance
Found out that context switching is dependent on several things, of which the scheduler is a big part. These results are obtained by running the benchmark with the CaCule-RDB scheduler. When doing the same benchmark using The default CFS scheduler the average result is about 100 clocks higher (about 250 clocks).
Comment