From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261612AbUB1LSs (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:18:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261626AbUB1LSs (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:18:48 -0500 Received: from mail003.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.144]:25509 "EHLO mail003.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261612AbUB1LSp (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:18:45 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: sched domains kernbench improvements Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:18:41 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 Cc: linux kernel mailing list References: <200402282159.58452.kernel@kolivas.org> <40407847.7040403@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <40407847.7040403@cyberone.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200402282218.41590.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:15, Nick Piggin wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > >Hi Nick > > > >>So it is more a matter of tuning than anything fundamental > > > >Geez I know how you feel... :-D > > > > > >I tried it on the X440 with sched smt disabled > > > >better than before but still slower than vanilla on half load; however > > better than vanilla on optimal and full load now! I wonder whether the > > worse result on half load is as relevant since this is 8x HT cpus? > > Thanks. Yep the drop off at half load is to be expected with > CONFIG_SCHED_SMT turned off. Will this affect the SCHED_SMT performance and should I do a round of benchies with this enabled? Con