From: Rodrigo Ventura <yoda@isr.ist.utl.pt>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Threads FAQ entry incomplete
Date: 20 Jun 2001 19:59:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <lx66drf04u.fsf@pixie.isr.ist.utl.pt> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010620104800.D1174@w-mikek2.des.beaverton.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: Mike Kravetz's message of "Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:48:00 -0700"
>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Kravetz <mkravetz@sequent.com> writes:
Mike> Note that in the 2 and 4 CPU cases, the run queue length is
Mike> aprox 2x the number of CPUs and the scheduler seems to
Mike> perform reasonably well with respect to locking. In the 8
Mike> CPU case, the number of tasks is aprox equal to the number
Mike> of CPUs yet scheduler performance has gone downhill.
Obviously, since as the number of CPUs grow, you begin
experiencing the bottleneck of shared resources (bus, memory, I/O,
etc.) multiplexing. For a large number of processors, the performance
becomes very far from linear, i.e. the gain obtained from an extra CPU
becomes very minute. That's why massively parallel computers tend to
use separate motherboards for each CPU.
BTW, I have a question: Can the availability of dual-CPU
boards for intel and amd processors, rather then tri- or quadra-CPU
boards, be explained with the fact that the performance degrades
significantly for three or more CPUs? Or is there a technological
and/or comercial reason behind? I heard somewhere that the intel holds
some patents related with many-CPU boards...
Cheers,
--
*** Rodrigo Martins de Matos Ventura <yoda@isr.ist.utl.pt>
*** Web page: http://www.isr.ist.utl.pt/~yoda
*** Teaching Assistant and PhD Student at ISR:
*** Instituto de Sistemas e Robotica, Polo de Lisboa
*** Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisboa, PORTUGAL
*** PGP fingerprint = 0119 AD13 9EEE 264A 3F10 31D3 89B3 C6C4 60C6 4585
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-20 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-20 17:48 Threads FAQ entry incomplete Mike Kravetz
2001-06-20 18:59 ` Rodrigo Ventura [this message]
2001-06-20 19:42 ` Charles Cazabon
2001-06-20 23:00 ` J.D. Bakker
2001-06-20 22:53 ` Charles Cazabon
2001-06-21 0:50 ` D. Stimits
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=lx66drf04u.fsf@pixie.isr.ist.utl.pt \
--to=yoda@isr.ist.utl.pt \
--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