Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-23,: Re: More new schedule() results ...

# Re: More new schedule() results ...

Davide Libenzi (dlibenzi@maticad.it)
Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:53:05 +0200 (CEST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [OT] Re: Profanity in the Linux Kernel?!?!?"
- Previous message: Alex Belits: "Re: generalizing khttpd"
- Next in thread: Andrew Kieschnick: "Re: More new schedule() results ..."
- Reply: Andrew Kieschnick: "Re: More new schedule() results ..."

>> N.Threads 2.3.5 MyPatch Diff
>>
>> 2 700000 600000 -15 %
>> 10 280000 365000 +25 %
>> 450 6100 8900 +45 %

>this is what i suspected. If we are switching 450 threads that also do
>some real work then we are trashing the cache _badly_ already, so pure
>scheduling costs will not matter at all. Most systems (even loaded
>servers) have typically less than 5 runnable processes. So those systems
>will see 15% scheduling slowdown. Some applications might use many threads
>- for those cases your patch is a nice improvement.

Sorry, but are we building a new version of MS-DOS here ???

Linux is well known as good server platform and You want to say me that
more of Linux users will fall the 2 thread case ??!?!

In a schedule() algo filled of gotos to get a better prefetch queue that can
improve speed no more then 10 % I post a patch that on tipical Linux machines
will lead to a 30 up to 80 % of increasing performance.

Now one of the two things must be true:

1) I'm crazy
2) I'm in the wrong place

Let me know.

Cheers,
Davide.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [OT] Re: Profanity in the Linux Kernel?!?!?"
- Previous message: Alex Belits: "Re: generalizing khttpd"
- Next in thread: Andrew Kieschnick: "Re: More new schedule() results ..."
- Reply: Andrew Kieschnick: "Re: More new schedule() results ..."