Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 May 1999 22:59:25 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Great News!! Was: [RFT] 2.2.8_andrea1 wake-one |
| |
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Phillip Ezolt wrote:
>Hi all, (especially Andrea)
Hi Philip ;)
> I've been doing some more SPECWeb96 tests, and with Andrea's >patch to 2.2.8 (ftp://e-mind.com/pub/andrea/kernel/2.2.8_andrea1.bz) >
[snipped the cool piece ;)]
>**Please, put the wakeone patch into the 2.2.X kernel if it isn't already. **
Well in my patch I changed many things (starting from reimplementing the SMP rescheudle_idle, a good rewrite of buffer.c and my VM, etcc.etc..etc..), there's not only the wake-one thing (that really right now is a wake-three as pointed out by Dave ;).
I would be interesting if you would repeat the bench with apache compiled to sleep in flock(2) (not in accept(2)) so the wake-one part of my patch won't improve performances at all (since only one task at once will sleep in accept(2); that way all other tasks will be waken-all as before), so we'll get the figures about how much my wake-one approch (or better wake-three) made differences in bench results.
The only place where I specified TASK_WAKE_ONE as bit-state was in the accept(2) sleep path (grep the patch and you'll see).
If my little wake-three patch for accept(2) made the difference, then merging it in 2.2.x would be trivial since it impacts really a few bits of code.
Many thanks for the interesting informations!
Andrea Arcangeli
- 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/
| |