From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:09:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:09:18 -0500 Received: from Cantor.suse.de ([194.112.123.193]:22288 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:09:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:08:52 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Mark Hahn Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: multi-queue scheduler update Message-ID: <20010119020852.A6973@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20010119012616.D32087@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca on Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote: > > > microseconds/yield > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.4 2.4-multi-queue > > > ------------ --------- -------- --------------- > > > 16 18.740 4.603 1.455 > > > > I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the mainline O(N) > > isn't the normal case (as in "The Right Case to optimize") > where there are close to zero runnable tasks? what realistic/sane > scenarios have very large numbers of spinning threads? all server > situations I can think of do not. not volanomark -loopback, surely! I think the main point of Mike's patch is decreasing locking and cache line bouncing overhead of multi cpu scheduling, not optimizing lots of runnable tasks. -Andi - 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/