[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090907083710.3d78393c@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:37:10 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>
Cc: Markus Tornqvist <mjt@...v.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, kernel@...ivas.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, efault@....de
Subject: Re: [quad core results] BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and
measurements
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:24:29 +0200
Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@...e.fr> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 07:45 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:41:51 +0300
> > > >It shows similar curves and behavior to the 8-core results i
> > > >posted
> > > >- BFS is slower than mainline in virtually every measurement.
> > > >The ratios are different for different parts of the graphs - but
> > > >the trend is similar.
> > >
> > > Dude, not cool.
> > >
> > > 1. Quad HT is not the same as a 4-core desktop, you're doing it
> > > with 8 cores
> >
> > 4 cores, 8 threads. Which is basically the standard desktop cpu
> > going forward... (4 cores already is today, 8 threads is that any
> > day now)
>
> Except on your typical smartphone, which will run linux and probably
> vastly outnumber the number of "traditional" linux desktops.
yeah the trend in cellphones is only quad core without HT, not quad
core WITH ht ;-)
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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