[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185819052.19777.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:10:52 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: yield debugging
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 19:37 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Tim,
>
> * Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Could you try the patch below? It does not change the default behavior
> of yield but introduces 2 other yield strategies which you can activate
> runtime (if CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y) via:
>
> # default one:
> echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_yield_bug_workaround
>
> # always queues the current task next to the next task:
> echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_yield_bug_workaround
>
> # NOP:
> echo 2 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_yield_bug_workaround
>
> does variant '1' improve Java's VolanoMark performance perhaps?
>
Here's a summary of Volanomark performance numbers:
Variant 0 is 80% down from 2.6.22
Variant 1 is 20% down from 2.6.22 (this is indeed helped)
Variant 2 is 89% down from 2.6.22
> i'm also wondering, which JDK is this, and where does Java make use of
> sys_sched_yield()? It's a voefully badly defined (and thus unreliable)
> system call, IMO Java should stop using it ASAP and use a saner locking
> model.
I am using a JRockit JDK.
Thanks.
Tim
-
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