On Thursday 18 January 2001 17:33, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:08:52AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:00:16PM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > > > > microseconds/yield
> > > > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.4 2.4-multi-queue
> > > > > ------------ --------- -------- ---------------
> > > > > 16 18.740 4.603 1.455
> > > >
> > > > I remeber the O(1) scheduler from Davide Libenzi was beating the
> > > > mainline O(N)
> > >
> > > isn't the normal case (as in "The Right Case to optimize")
> > > where there are close to zero runnable tasks? what realistic/sane
> > > scenarios have very large numbers of spinning threads? all server
> > > situations I can think of do not. not volanomark -loopback, surely!
> >
> > I think the main point of Mike's patch is decreasing locking and cache
> > line bouncing overhead of multi cpu scheduling, not optimizing lots of
> > runnable tasks.
> >
> >
> > -Andi
>
> Andi is correct. Although the results I posted may seem to indicate
> we are concentrating on high thread counts, this is really secondary
> to reducing lock contention within the scheduler. A co-worker down
> the hall just ran pgbench (a postgresql db) benchmark and saw
> contention on the runqueue lock at 57%. Now, I know nothing about this
> benchmark, but it will be interesting to see what happens after
> applying my patch.
Yep, the patch work in a different way and if these are the numbers it seems
to be interesting.
Could You post results for a fewer number of tasks ?
I mean what is the performance loss for 1,2,..,5 tasks ?
To test You can use lmbench ( I don't remember the link ) and I should have
the program I've used to test my patch somewhere.
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
