From: Brian <hiryuu@envisiongames.net>
To: Mike Kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler, -D1, 2.5.2-pre9, 2.4.17
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 01:29:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0GPN00CMLRC7U8@mtaout45-01.icomcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020108193904.A1068@w-mikek2.beaverton.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201072122290.14092-100000@localhost.localdomain> <20020108193904.A1068@w-mikek2.beaverton.ibm.com>
Can this be correct?
Intuitively, I would expect several CPUs hammering away at the compile to
finish faster than one. Given these numbers, I would have to conclude
that is not just wrong, but absolutely wrong. Compile time increases
linearly with the number of jobs, regardless of the number of CPUs.
What would cause this? Severe memory bottlenecks?
-- Brian
On Tuesday 08 January 2002 10:39 pm, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mkbench - Time how long it takes to compile the kernel.
> We use 'make -j 8' and increase the number of makes run
> in parallel. Result is average build time in seconds.
> Lower is better.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> # CPUs # Makes Vanilla O(1) haMQ
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2 1 188 192 184
> 2 2 366 372 362
> 2 4 730 742 600
> 2 6 1096 1112 853
> 4 1 102 101 95
> 4 2 196 198 186
> 4 4 384 386 374
> 4 6 576 579 487
> 8 1 58 57 58
> 8 2 109 108 105
> 8 4 209 213 186
> 8 6 309 312 280
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-09 6:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-07 20:24 Ingo Molnar
2002-01-07 19:03 ` Brian Gerst
2002-01-07 21:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-09 3:39 ` Mike Kravetz
2002-01-09 3:32 ` Rusty Russell
2002-01-09 18:02 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-09 5:05 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-09 11:19 ` Rene Rebe
2002-01-09 15:34 ` Ryan Cumming
2002-01-09 11:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-09 18:24 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-09 21:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-09 19:38 ` Mike Kravetz
2002-01-10 18:21 ` Mike Kravetz
2002-01-10 19:08 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-10 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-10 21:08 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-10 19:15 ` Mike Kravetz
2002-01-10 20:05 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-09 22:34 ` Mark Hahn
2002-01-10 14:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-09 20:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-09 23:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-09 10:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-09 17:40 ` Mike Kravetz
2002-01-09 6:29 ` Brian [this message]
2002-01-09 6:40 ` Jeffrey W. Baker
2002-01-09 6:45 ` Ryan Cumming
2002-01-09 6:48 ` Ryan Cumming
[not found] <200201071922.g07JMN106760@penguin.transmeta.com>
2002-01-07 21:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-08 8:49 ` FD Cami
2002-01-08 18:44 ` J Sloan
2002-01-08 11:32 ` Anton Blanchard
2002-01-08 11:43 ` Anton Blanchard
2002-01-08 14:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-09 23:15 ` Anton Blanchard
2002-01-10 1:09 ` Richard Henderson
2002-01-10 17:04 ` Ivan Kokshaysky
2002-01-10 20:42 ` george anzinger
2002-01-10 23:56 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0GPN00CMLRC7U8@mtaout45-01.icomcast.net \
--to=hiryuu@envisiongames.net \
--cc=kravetz@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®