[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:0.043 / U:1.804 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site