From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 20:09:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 20:09:43 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:14020 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 2 May 2002 20:09:41 -0400 To: Alan Cox cc: rwhron@earthlink.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: Gerrit Huizenga From: Gerrit Huizenga Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler gives big boost to tbench 192 In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 03 May 2002 01:14:19 BST. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3050.1020388134.1@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:08:54 -0700 Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message , > : Alan Cox writes: > > > Rumor is that on some workloads MQ it outperforms O(1), but it > > may be that the latest (post K3?) O(1) is catching up? > > I'd be interested to know what workloads ? AIM on large CPU count machines was the most significant I had heard about. Haven't measured recently on database load - we made a cut to O(1) some time back for simplicity. Supposedly volanomark was doing better for a while but again we haven't cut back to MQ in quite a while; trying instead to refine O(1). Volanomark is something of a scheduling anomaly though - sender/receiver timing on loopback affects scheduling decisions and overall throughput in ways that may or may not be consistent with real workloads. AIM is probably a better workload for "real life" random scheduling testing. gerrit