Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:31:33PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
Willy,
These are all good comments. Regarding the cache penalty, I've done some
measurements using benchmarks like SPEC OMP on an 8-processor SMP and
the performance with this patch was nearly identical to that
Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:31:33PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
Willy,
These are all good comments. Regarding the cache penalty, I've done some
measurements using benchmarks like SPEC OMP on an 8-processor SMP and
the performance with this patch was nearly identical to that
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:31:33PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
> Willy,
>
> These are all good comments. Regarding the cache penalty, I've done some
> measurements using benchmarks like SPEC OMP on an 8-processor SMP and
> the performance with this patch was nearly identical to that with the
>
Jesse; William Lee Irwin
III;
> Bill Huey (hui); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Piggin;
Bill
> Davidsen; John Kingman; Peter Williams; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Extend Linux to support proportional-share
scheduling
>
> Hi Tong,
>
> On Tue, Jun 05, 200
Hi Tong,
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:56:17PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've ported my code to mainline 2.6.21.3. You can get it at
> http://www.cs.duke.edu/~tongli/linux/.
as much as possible, you should post your patch for others to comment
on it. Posting just a URL is often fine
Hi Tong,
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:56:17PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
Hi all,
I've ported my code to mainline 2.6.21.3. You can get it at
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~tongli/linux/.
as much as possible, you should post your patch for others to comment
on it. Posting just a URL is often fine to
III;
Bill Huey (hui); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Piggin;
Bill
Davidsen; John Kingman; Peter Williams; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RFC] Extend Linux to support proportional-share
scheduling
Hi Tong,
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:56:17PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
Hi all
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:31:33PM -0700, Li, Tong N wrote:
Willy,
These are all good comments. Regarding the cache penalty, I've done some
measurements using benchmarks like SPEC OMP on an 8-processor SMP and
the performance with this patch was nearly identical to that with the
mainline.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:30:04AM -0700, Tong Li wrote:
> This patch extends the existing Linux scheduler with support for
> proportional-share scheduling (as a new KConfig option).
> http://www.cs.duke.edu/~tongli/linux/linux-2.6.19.2-trio.patch
> It uses a scheduling algorithm, called
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:30:04AM -0700, Tong Li wrote:
This patch extends the existing Linux scheduler with support for
proportional-share scheduling (as a new KConfig option).
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~tongli/linux/linux-2.6.19.2-trio.patch
It uses a scheduling algorithm, called Distributed
10 matches
Mail list logo
