public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Prakash K. Cheemplavam" <prakashkc@gmx.de>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:22:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <411A71F1.3090504@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <411A0B71.4030503@gmx.de>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

|
| I don't think it is the overhead. I rather think the way the kernel
| schedulers gives mpich and the cpu bound program  resources is unfair.

Well, I don't know whether it helps, but I ran a profiler and these are
the functions which cause so much wasted CPU cycles when running 16
processes of my example with mpich:

124910    9.8170  vmlinux                  tcp_poll
123356    9.6949  vmlinux                  sys_select
85634     6.7302  vmlinux                  do_select
71858     5.6475  vmlinux                  sysenter_past_esp
62093     4.8801  vmlinux                  kfree
51658     4.0600  vmlinux                  __copy_to_user_ll
37495     2.9468  vmlinux                  max_select_fd
36949     2.9039  vmlinux                  __kmalloc
22700     1.7841  vmlinux                  __copy_from_user_ll
14587     1.1464  vmlinux                  do_gettimeofday

Is anything scheduler related?

bye,

Prakash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBGnHxxU2n/+9+t5gRAlF+AJ9z+OqbIJYkeiy4nAPVB22S/WLLnACg1khF
XeF+3Hq0adpoLjdbn+tmzn0=
=7Onu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  reply	other threads:[~2004-08-11 19:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20040811010116.GL11200@holomorphy.com>
2004-08-11  2:21 ` Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others) spaminos-ker
2004-08-11  2:23   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-11  2:45     ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11  2:47       ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11  3:23         ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11  3:31           ` Con Kolivas
2004-08-11  3:46             ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11  3:44           ` Peter Williams
2004-08-13  0:13             ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-13  1:44               ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11  3:09   ` Con Kolivas
2004-08-11 10:24     ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-08-11 11:26       ` Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series Con Kolivas
2004-08-11 12:05         ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-08-11 19:22           ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam [this message]
2004-08-11 23:42             ` Con Kolivas
2004-08-12  8:08               ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-08-12 18:18               ` Bill Davidsen
2004-08-12  2:04     ` Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others) spaminos-ker
2004-08-12  2:24     ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-12  2:53       ` Con Kolivas

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=411A71F1.3090504@gmx.de \
    --to=prakashkc@gmx.de \
    --cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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