lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes


On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> Am I right assuming lat_ctx -s 0 2 spawns two threads that only ping pong
> all the time at maximal rate on a pipe to benchmark the speed of
> schedule() (not the behaviour of the SMP scheduler!)? Such bench is single
> threaded, the pipe don't even use the normal wakeup but it only calls
> schedule() strightforward so I don't think my changes can affect such a
> benchark. Maybe I am missing something...

It is not really single-threaded. In fact, in theory it could use 2 CPU*s
pretty much 100%, bouncing between one reading and the other writing.

It is threaded to a large degree by the pipe semaphore, though. Even so,
there's a wakeup event when a writer has added more data and wakes up the
reader.

And no, the wake_p_sync() case does not get invoced by the pipe latency
case: it only matters for the throughput case where the pipe _does_ turn
completely synchronous because it's in kernel space all the time. For the
"send a single byte back and forth" case, we can't use the synchronous
version, because the sender is not going to sleep immediately afterwards
(it's going to return to user mode).

Linus


-
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 13:56    [W:0.046 / U:2.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site