From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262537AbVG2JCR (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:02:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262523AbVG2JCQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:02:16 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:46021 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262209AbVG2JCN (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:02:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:01:22 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nick Piggin Cc: "Chen, Kenneth W" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Message-ID: <20050729090122.GB8699@elte.hu> References: <200507290627.j6T6Rrg06842@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <42E9ED47.1030003@yahoo.com.au> <20050729085340.GA8699@elte.hu> <42E9EFDD.4020703@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42E9EFDD.4020703@yahoo.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Nick Piggin wrote: > >>processes 1 2 3 4 > >> > >>2.6.13-rc4: 187, 183, 179 260, 259, 256 340, 320, 349 504, 496, 500 > >>no wake-bal: 180, 180, 177 254, 254, 253 268, 270, 348 345, 290, 500 > >> > >>Numbers are MB/s, higher is better. > > > > > >what type of network was used - localhost or a real one? > > > > Localhost. Yeah it isn't a real world test, but it does show the > erratic behaviour without wake affine. yeah - fine enough. (It's not representative for IO workloads, but it's representative for local IPC workloads, just wanted to know precisely which workload it is.) Ingo