From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:50:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:50:07 -0500 Received: from tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil ([204.222.179.33]:47469 "EHLO tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:49:53 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:49:52 -0600 (CST) From: Jesse Pollard Message-Id: <200101211749.LAA20104@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil> To: hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: multi-queue scheduler update X-Mailer: [XMailTool v3.1.2b] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mark Hahn : > > > > 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! How about massively parallel compute jobs when synchronizing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil Any opinions expressed are solely my own. - 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/