On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 05:07:46PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> [..] It's spending a lot less time in %sys despite the
> higher context switches, [..]
The workload takes 40% more so you've to add up that additional 40%
too into your math. "A lot less time" sounds an overstatement to
me. Also you'
Tim Chen wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 02:51 -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
Tim --
Since you're already set up to do this benchmarking, would you mind
varying the parameters a bit and collecting vmstat data? If you want to
run oprofile too, that wouldn't hurt.
Here's the vmstat data. The nu
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 02:51 -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
>
> Tim --
>
> Since you're already set up to do this benchmarking, would you mind
> varying the parameters a bit and collecting vmstat data? If you want to
> run oprofile too, that wouldn't hurt.
>
Here's the vmstat data. The num
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:43:23PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
I'm pretty sure the point of posting a patch that triples CFS performance
on a certain benchmark and arguably improves the semantics of sched_yield
was to improve CFS. You have a point, but it is a point for a
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:43:23PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the point of posting a patch that triples CFS performance
> on a certain benchmark and arguably improves the semantics of sched_yield
> was to improve CFS. You have a point, but it is a point for a different
> thread
5 matches
Mail list logo
