[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080116161951.GA15000@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:19:51 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Colin Fowler <elethiomel@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Performance loss 2.6.22->22.6.23->2.6.24-rc7 on CPU intensive
benchmark on 8 Core Xeon
* Colin Fowler <elethiomel@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Ingo, I'll need to convince my supervisor first if I can release a
> binary. Technically anythin glike this needs to go through our
> University's "innovations department" and requires lengthy paperwork
> and NDAs :(.
a binary wouldnt work for me anyway. But you could try to write a
"workload simulator": just pick out the pthread ops and replace the
worker functions with some dummy stuff that just touches an array that
has similar size to the tiles (in a tight loop). Make sure it has
similar context-switch rate and idle percentage as your real workload -
then send us the .c file. As long as it's a single .c file that runs for
a few seconds and outputs a precise enough "run time" result, kernel
developers would pick it up and use it for optimizations. To get the #
of cpus automatically you can do:
cpus = system("exit `grep processor /proc/cpuinfo | wc -l`");
cpus = WEXITSTATUS(cpus);
and start as many threads as many CPUs there are in the system.
Ingo
--
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