[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704241039110.8341@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > Last I checked it was workload-dependent, but there were things that
> > hammer it. I mostly know of the remote wakeup issue, but there could
> > be other things besides wakeups that do it, too.
>
> remote wakeup was the main issue and the 0.5% improvement was seen
> on a two node platform. Aligning it reduces the number of remote
> cachelines that needs to be touched as part of this wakeup.
.5% is usually in the noise ratio. Are you consistently seeing an
improvement or is that sporadic?
-
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