[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: More new schedule() results ...

    >> N.Threads 2.3.5 MyPatch Diff
    >> 2 700000 600000 -15 %
    >> 10 280000 365000 +25 %
    >> 450 6100 8900 +45 %

    >this is what i suspected. If we are switching 450 threads that also do
    >some real work then we are trashing the cache _badly_ already, so pure
    >scheduling costs will not matter at all. Most systems (even loaded
    >servers) have typically less than 5 runnable processes. So those systems
    >will see 15% scheduling slowdown. Some applications might use many threads
    >- for those cases your patch is a nice improvement.

    Sorry, but are we building a new version of MS-DOS here ???

    Linux is well known as good server platform and You want to say me that
    more of Linux users will fall the 2 thread case ??!?!

    In a schedule() algo filled of gotos to get a better prefetch queue that can
    improve speed no more then 10 % I post a patch that on tipical Linux machines
    will lead to a 30 up to 80 % of increasing performance.

    Now one of the two things must be true:

    1) I'm crazy
    2) I'm in the wrong place

    Let me know.


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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.020 / U:3.596 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site