From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:59:09 +0000 Subject: Re: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Message-Id: <42E9EFDD.4020703@yahoo.com.au> List-Id: References: <200507290627.j6T6Rrg06842@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <42E9ED47.1030003@yahoo.com.au> <20050729085340.GA8699@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20050729085340.GA8699@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ingo Molnar Cc: "Chen, Kenneth W" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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. I don't have a setup with multiple fast network adapters otherwise I would have run a similar test using a real network. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com