From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:00:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:00:46 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:22675 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:00:30 -0400 Importance: Normal Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Scalable Scheduling To: Victor Yodaiken Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: From: "Hubertus Franke" Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:02:12 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML244/01/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 08/08/2001 04:00:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Obviously not. Take a look at the presentation from Ottawa Linux Symposium. We ran this on 2-way for various applications from kernel builds to TPC-H apps and it actually slightly improved performance. It has detailed overviews of lock contention and wait times. start at http://lse.sourceforge.net/scheduling/ols2001/img41.htm if you are lazy, but the MQ description really is a good overview and describes some of the data structures At 2-ways we see it at worst to be a wash for the benchmarks we used. Hubertus Franke Enterprise Linux Group (Mgr), Linux Technology Center (Member Scalability) , OS-PIC (Chair) email: frankeh@us.ibm.com (w) 914-945-2003 (fax) 914-945-4425 TL: 862-2003 Victor Yodaiken on 08/08/2001 03:51:43 PM To: Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: Victor Yodaiken , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Scalable Scheduling On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:40:00PM -0400, Hubertus Franke wrote: > > We did not modify the UP code at all. There will be NO effects (positive > nor negative) what so ever. Cool. So the obvious next question is How does it compare on a dual to the current Linux scheduler? Obviously: Performance sucks on two processors but scales well would not be a good thing. > > Hubertus Franke > Enterprise Linux Group (Mgr), Linux Technology Center (Member Scalability) > , OS-PIC (Chair) > email: frankeh@us.ibm.com > (w) 914-945-2003 (fax) 914-945-4425 TL: 862-2003 > > > > Victor Yodaiken on 08/08/2001 03:27:55 PM > > To: Mike Kravetz > cc: Linus Torvalds , Hubertus > Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Scalable Scheduling > > > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 11:28:00AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > One challenge will be maintaining the same level of performance > > for UP as in the current code. The current code has #ifdefs to > > How does the "current code" compare to the current Linux UP code? > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/