[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Context switch times
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 10:42:37PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Could we try to hit just two? Probably, but it doesn't really matter,
> > though: to make the lmbench scheduler benchmark go at full speed, you
> > want to limit it to _one_ CPU, which is not sensible in real-life
> > situations.
> Can you clarify? I agree that tuning the system for the best LMbench
> performance is not a good thing to do! However, in general on an
> 8 CPU system with only 2 'active' tasks I would think limiting the
> tasks to 2 CPUs would be desirable for cache effects.
> I know that running LMbench with 2 active tasks on an 8 CPU system
> results in those 2 tasks being 'round-robined' among all 8 CPUs.
> Prior analysis leads me to believe the reason for this is due to
> IPI latency. reschedule_idle() chooses the 'best/correct' CPU for
> a task to run on, but before schedule() runs on that CPU another
> CPU runs schedule() and the result is that the task runs on a
> ?less desirable? CPU. The nature of the LMbench scheduler benchmark
> makes this occur frequently. The real question is: how often
> does this happen in real-life situations?

Well, if you remember the first time this issue was discussed on the
mailing list was due a real life situation not due a bench run.

- Davide

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.140 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site