[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707161213500.1817@scrub.home>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:18:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: James Bruce <bruce@...rew.cmu.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yes, the weight multiplier 1.25, but the actual difference in CPU
> utilization, when running two CPU intense tasks, is ~10%:
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 8246 mingo 20 0 1576 244 196 R 55 0.0 0:11.96 loop
> 8247 mingo 21 1 1576 244 196 R 45 0.0 0:10.52 loop
>
> so the first task 'wins' +10% CPU utilization (relative to the 50% it
> had before), the second task 'loses' -10% CPU utilization (relative to
> the 50% it had before).
As soon as you add another loop the difference changes again, while it's
always correct to say it gets 25% more cpu time (which I still think is a
little too much).
bye, Roman
-
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