Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: O(1) scheduler gives big boost to tbench 192 | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 08 May 2002 09:31:39 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 08:34, Jussi Laako wrote:
> Mike Kravetz wrote: > > > > I'd really like to know if there are any real workloads that > > benefited from this feature, rather than just some benchmark. > > Maybe this is the reason why O(1) scheduler has big latencies with > pthread_cond_*() functions which original scheduler doesn't have? > I think I tracked the problem down to try_to_wake_up(), but I was unable to > fix it.
Ah this could be the same case. I just looked into the definition of the conditional variable pthread stuff and it looks like it _could_ be implemented using pipes but I do not see why it would per se. If it does not use pipes, then this sync issue is not at hand (only the pipe code passed 1 for the sync flag).
If it does not use pipes, we could have another problem - but I doubt it. Maybe the benchmark is just another case where it shows worse performance due to some attribute of the scheduler or load balancer?
Robert Love
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |