lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: sched fixes 2.3.36
From
Date
>>>>> "A" == Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

>> tasks. IMHO with the reliable active_mm information we have in 2.3.x (so
>> being sure to do the right thing) using a +5 should not hurt (maybe we
>> could remove 4 points from the per-processor penality?).

A> Search the kernel archives for late 2.1.x about jumpy SMP behaviour. People
A> traced problems back to the processor favouritism.

A> I also saw no difference on performance when testing multi-cpu load stuff
A> with different values. I think Ingo also did some stuff with this

Any effect will be dependent on the size of the caches. Any effect
would be very small (might be non-existent) on a Celeron (128kB L2
cache), and might be quite noticable on a 2MB L2 Xeon. Cache sizes
inbetween would be expected to have intermediate affect.

Anybody benchmark how much of the L2 cache gets dirtied in a
"typical" (probably read/write) syscall that also goes through
schedule()?

--
Scott Henry <scotth@sgi.com> / Help! My disclaimer is missing!
IRIX MTS, / GIGO *really* means: Garbage in, Gospel Out
Silicon Graphics, Inc / http://reality.sgi.com/scotth/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.029 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site