![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Monday 17 April 2006 04:44, Andreas Mohr wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 09:22:59AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > The current value, 6ms at 1000HZ, is chosen because it's the largest > > value that can schedule a task in less than normal human perceptible > > range when two competing heavily cpu bound tasks are the same priority. > > At 250HZ it works out to 7.5ms and 10ms at 100HZ. Ironically in my > > experimenting I found the cpu cache improvements become much less > > significant above 7ms so I'm very happy with this compromise. > > Heh, this part is *EXACTLY* a fully sufficient explanation of what I was > wondering about myself just these days ;) > (I'm experimenting with different timeslice values on my P3/450 to verify > what performance impact exactly it has) > However with a measly 256kB cache it probably doesn't matter too much, > I think. > > But I think it's still important to mention that your perception might be > twisted by your P4 limitation (no testing with slower and really slow > machines). You underestimate me. Those cpu cache effects were performance effects measured down to a PII 233, but all were i386 architecture. As for "perception" this isn't my testing I'm talking about; these are neuropsychiatric tests that have nothing to do with pcs or what processor you use ;) -- -ck - 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: 2006-04-17 00:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||