lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: more on scheduler benchmarks
On Monday 22 January 2001 10:30, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Last week while discussing scheduler benchmarks, Bill Hartner
> made a comment something like the following "the benchmark may
> not even be invoking the scheduler as you expect". This comment
> did not fully sink in until this weekend when I started thinking
> about changes made to sched_yield() in 2.4.0. (I'm cc'ing Ingo
> Molnar because I think he was involved in the changes). If you
> haven't taken a look at sys_sched_yield() in 2.4.0, I suggest
> that you do that now.
>
> A result of new optimizations made to sys_sched_yield() is that
> calling sched_yield() does not result in a 'reschedule' if there
> are no tasks waiting for CPU resources. Therefore, I would claim
> that running 'scheduler benchmarks' which loop doing sched_yield()
> seem to have little meaning/value for runs where the number of
> looping tasks is less than then number of CPUs in the system. Is
> that an accurate statement?

With this kind of test tasks are always running.
If You print the nr_running You'll find that this is exactly ( at least ) the
number of tasks You've spawned so the scheduler is always called.



- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.083 / U:2.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site