[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1202790635.4165.43.camel@homer.simson.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:30:35 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Scheduler(?) regression from 2.6.22 to 2.6.24 for short-lived
threads
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 16:45 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I think the moving to another CPU gets really dependent on the CPU type.
> On a P4+HT the caches are shared, and moving costs almost nothing for
> cache hits, while on CPUs which have other cache layouts the migration
> cost is higher. Obviously multi-core should be cheaper than
> multi-socket, by avoiding using the system memory bus, but it still can
> get ugly.
>
> I have an IPC test around which showed that, it ran like hell on HT, and
> progressively worse as cache because less shared. I wonder why the
> latest git works so much better?
Yes, I'm wondering the same. With latest git, ~400 usec work units
suffice to achieve overlap (on my P4/HT), whereas all other kernels
tested require several milliseconds.
-Mike
--
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