![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
NOTE: I suggested to the author that he run his benchmark on the same hardware under UP and SMP. result: no significant difference. the conclusion from the test is that his compiler produces code that runs faster on a K6-2 than a PIII; the scheduler is irrelevant. On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Peter Waltenberg wrote: ... > No, it's still broken. Andrea has some patches for 2.2. > 2.3 is still worse SMP than UP for anything CPU intensive. where are your numbers? > I'm amazed that people are whinging about a phantom 5% in the scheduler when > there's a real 100%+ to be gained by fixing this one. are you talking about ongoing silly-fest about long runqueues? please don't confuse that with reality. > It's a real bug. The current scheduler kicks running processes even when > there's an idle CPU available. That means that heavy CPU use processes get > ping-ponged across CPU's. where are your numbers? regards, mark hahn. - 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 12:56 [W:0.566 / U:0.060 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||