[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Auto-Adaptive scheduler - Final chapter ( the numbers ) ...
    "Davide Libenzi" <> said:
    > Horst von Brand <> wrote :
    > > As was said here time and again: This is ridiculously unrealistic. Your
    > > benchmark plus whatever scheduler you use fits in the smallest cache. Use
    > > some code that is some 2 or 3Kb at least between schedules, and run
    > > _different_ code each time. I'd bet you see quite different numbers that
    > way.

    > These are my words in Larry answer :
    > This is a pure switching time test.
    > It is a _real_ switching test, that can be used to test switching times
    > under _certain_
    > RQ loads :

    Exactly. Something that _never_ happens in real life.


    > Anyway adding a cache footprint into the two cases will add a constant term
    > that minimize
    > even more the percent result.

    No. Your scheduler dirties the cache much more than the standard one, so it
    will blow out much more of the application (and get blown out of cache more
    too). Most probably just one cache miss kills all your advantage (if there
    is one at all, Larry has said that a 3% difference could be due just to
    random factors).

    Sure, pure swichting time is a nice number to quote, but it has no
    significance for real life.
    Horst von Brand
    Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.023 / U:2.248 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site