[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.68-B2
        Well on high load, you shouldn't have an idle cpu anyway, so you would never 
    pass the requirements for the agressive -idle- steal even if it was turned
    on. On low loads on HT, without this agressive balance on cpu bound tasks,
    you will always load up one core before using any of the others.

    For a brief period of time. But with active_load_balance() being called
    on the idle processors, they will steal from a core/sibling pair to give
    themselves something to do in, I should think, relatively short order.

    Myself, I'm getting odd results on kernbench (kernel compiles). On a
    4-proc + 4-sibling HT machine, I'm seeing:

    2.5.68 HW HT on, regular scheduler
    2.5.68-ht2 HW HT on, A9 hyperthreading scheduler siblings=2

    The HT scheduler seems to give us wins in every category but elapsed time.
    This was *with* the aggressive steal, so I've a bit more testing to try
    without it, collecting more information to identify why elapsed time is
    not dropping too.


    make -j2
    User System Elapsed %CPU
    2.5.68 471.19 34.14 263.25 191%
    2.5.68-ht2 335.54 24.46 257.86 139%

    make -j4
    User System Elapsed %CPU
    2.5.68 581.93 40.37 164.36 378%
    2.5.68-ht2 421.77 28.64 165.06 272%

    make -j8
    User System Elapsed %CPU
    2.5.68 946.24 60.05 138.13 728%
    2.5.68-ht2 685.05 43.38 138.59 525%

    make -j16
    User System Elapsed %CPU
    2.5.68 954.35 61.12 139.17 729%
    2.5.68-ht2 690.11 43.91 138.52 529%

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.027 / U:2.936 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site