[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69304d110609220531q70402d6dp31c28225e3b6e2a9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:31:13 +0200
From: "Antonio Vargas" <windenntw@...il.com>
To: "Ludovic Drolez" <ludovic.drolez@...box.com>
Cc: "Vincent Pelletier" <vincent.plr@...adoo.fr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
On 9/22/06, Ludovic Drolez <ludovic.drolez@...box.com> wrote:
> Vincent Pelletier wrote:
> > Maybe I was completely wrong with my assumption that one running process
> > always has an impact of 1, which would have make the scheduler underestimate
> > the load on one cpu and put too many processes on it, without moving them
> > afterward.
>
> Yes, maybe that's the problem, since in my bench, one process takes only 40% of
> the CPU.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Ludovic DROLEZ Linbox / Free&ALter Soft
> www.linbox.com www.linbox.org tel: +33 3 87 50 87 90
> 152 rue de Grigy - Technopole Metz 2000 57070 METZ
> -
Provided you have enough memory, the somewhat better way to test this
is to turn off swap, copy the sources to a tmpfs directory and compile
there. Then any disks accesses would be only related to reloading code
pages from the compiler / daemons /shared libs, which having even more
ram would solve so that it's all compute bound. I guess even 1.5Gb of
ram is plenty for all this, and not so much costly nowdays for a
kernel hacker ;)
--
Greetz, Antonio Vargas aka winden of network
http://network.amigascne.org/
windNOenSPAMntw@...il.com
thesameasabove@...gascne.org
Every day, every year
you have to work
you have to study
you have to scene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists