From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:09:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:09:07 -0500 Received: from gateway.sequent.com ([192.148.1.10]:50136 "EHLO gateway.sequent.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:08:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:08:49 -0800 From: Mike Kravetz To: Jun Nakajima Cc: lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] multi-queue scheduler update Message-ID: <20010123090849.A959@w-mikek2.sequent.com> In-Reply-To: <20010118155311.B8637@w-mikek.des.sequent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jun@sco.com on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:49:27AM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:49:27AM -0500, Jun Nakajima wrote: > I tried to run SDET (Software Development Environment Throughput), which > basically is a system level, throughput oriented benchmark, on the 2.4.0 > kernel and 2.4.0 kernel with this patch. Thanks for running this. I too remember SDET, but I won't claim to be old. :) We were doing some more analysis on the multi-queue scheduler and noticed that performance has regressed since posting preliminary numbers with the 2.4.0-test10 kernel. After comparing the code, it looks like I have over-engineered for the worst case of lock contention. This was done at the expense of the normal case. I'm currently working on this situation and expect to have a new patch out in the not too distant future. I expect the numbers will get better. -- Mike Kravetz mkravetz@sequent.com IBM Linux Technology Center - 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/