From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com [207.106.133.19]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E3FDDF06 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:39:29 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:23:09 -0500 From: Nathan Lynch To: Breno Leitao Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] sched: allow arch override of cpu power Message-ID: <20080627142309.GR9594@localdomain> References: <1213835374-10868-1-git-send-email-ntl@pobox.com> <4863F2CC.1030907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4863F2CC.1030907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar , Paul Mackerras , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anton Blanchard List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Breno Leitao wrote: > Nathan Lynch wrote: >> There is an "interesting" quality of POWER6 cores, which each have 2 >> hardware threads: assuming one thread on the core is idle, the primary >> thread is a little "faster" than the secondary thread. To illustrate: >> > I found this feature interesting and decided to do some tests. > After some tests I found that the example you post really runs fast in > the first CPU, but a more "elaborated" application runs slower on the > first CPU. > Here is a small example: > > # taskset 0x1 time -f "%e, %U, %S" ./a.out ; taskset 0x2 time -f "%e, > %U, %S" ./a.out > 10.77, 10.72, 0.01 > 10.53, 10.48, 0.01 > > # taskset 0x2 time -f "%e, %U, %S" ./a.out ; taskset 0x1 time -f "%e, > %U, %S" ./a.out > 10.55, 10.50, 0.01 > 10.77, 10.72, 0.01 I've been able to duplicate your results, thanks for the testcase. Guess I'll need to understand what's going on before continuing with this...