Re: O(1) scheduler gives big boost to tbench 192
Gerrit Huizenga (email@example.com)
Thu, 02 May 2002 18:08:54 -0700
In message <E173QiK-0005Bdfirstname.lastname@example.org>, > : 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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/