![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Peter Williams wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > > I figured using the weights (which go away for nice=0 tasks) would make > it behave nicely with the rest of the load balancing code. > OK, if you keep working on it that would be great. >> but I didn't quite look close enough to >> work out what's going wrong. > > > My testing (albeit on an old 2 cpu Celeron) showed no statistically > significant difference between with the patch and without. If you > ignored the standard deviations and statistical practice and just looked > at the raw numbers you'd think it was better with the patch than without > it. :-) > > I assume that Andy Whitcroft is doing a kernbench with the patch removed > from 2.6.15-mm3 (otherwise why would he ask for a patch to do that) and > I'm waiting to see how that compares with the run he did with it in. > There were other scheduling changes in 2.6.15-mm3 so I think this > comparison is needed in order to be sure that any degradation is still > due to my patch. > > Peter > PS As load balancing maintainer, is the value 128 set in cement for > SCHED_LOAD_SCALE? The reason I ask is that if it was changed to be a > multiple of NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0) (i.e. 20) my modification could be made > slightly more efficient. Not set in stone but it should really be a power of two because there are quite a lot of multiplies and divides done with it. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-14 07:19 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||