Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:35 PM > Wake balancing provides an opportunity to provide some input bias > into the load balancer. > > For example, if you started 100 pairs of tasks which communicate > through a pipe. On a 2 CPU system without wake balancing, probably > half of the pairs will be on different CPUs. With wake balancing, > it should be much better.
Shouldn't the pipe code use synchronous wakeup? > I hear you might be having problems with recent 2.6.13 kernels? If so, > it would be really good to have a look that before 2.6.13 goes out the > door. Yes I do :-(, apparently bumping up cache_hot_time won't give us the performance boost we used to see. - Ken - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
