From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
linux-ia64 <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:35:06 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200507311435.09225.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200507301929_MC3-1-A601-D4C2@compuserve.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 786 bytes --]
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:26, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 at 17:02:07 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > do wakeup-balancing only if the wakeup-CPU is idle.
> >
> > this prevents excessive wakeup-balancing while the system is highly
> > loaded, but helps spread out the workload on partly idle systems.
>
> I tested this with Volanomark on dual-processor PII Xeon -- the
> results were very bad:
>
> Before: 5863 messages per second
> After: 5569 messages per second
Can you check schedstats or otherwise to find if volanomark uses
sched_yield() ? When last this benchmark came up, it appeared that no jvm
used futexes and left locking to yielding. We really should find out if that
is the case before trying to optimise for this benchmark.
Cheers,
Con
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-31 4:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-30 23:26 [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-31 4:35 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2005-07-31 6:29 ` Ingo Molnar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-07-31 13:35 Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-29 2:01 Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 6:27 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 11:48 ` [patch] remove wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 14:13 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 15:02 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200507311435.09225.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=76306.1226@compuserve.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox