[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: ext2 performance in 2.5.25 versus 2.4.19pre8aa2
    Lincoln Dale wrote:
    > At 10:30 PM 14/07/2002 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > >Funny thing about your results is the presence of sched_yield(),
    > >especially in the copy-from-pagecache-only load. That test should
    > >peg the CPU at 100% and definitely shouldn't be spending time in
    > >default_idle. So who is calling sched_yield()? I think it has to be
    > >your test app?
    > >
    > >Be aware that the sched_yield() behaviour in 2.5 has changed a lot
    > >wrt 2.4. It has made StarOffice 5.2 completely unusable on a non-idle
    > >system, for a start. (This is a SO problem and not a kernel problem,
    > >but it's a lesson).
    > my test app uses pthreads (one thread per disk-worker) and
    > pthread_cond_wait in the master task to wait for all workers to finish.
    > i'll switch the app to use clone() and sys_futex instead.


    > i guess in that case, its debatable whether its a kernel problem or not --
    > pthreads is out there, and if its default behavior is bad, any threaded app
    > which uses it will also be bad.

    Well if your machine is executing a single cycle in default_idle
    with that load then there's a bug somewhere.

    I took a quick look at glibc-linuxthreads but as usual, my brain
    turned to mush and it took seven years off my life.

    If you can send me a copy of your test app I'll take a look
    at what's going on.

    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 13:27    [W:0.027 / U:0.588 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site