[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090907204645.GK18599@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 22:46:45 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > Agree, I was actually looking into doing joint latency for X
> > number of tasks for the test app. I'll try and do that and see if
> > we can detect something from that.
>
> Could you please try latest -tip:
>
> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
>
> (c26f010 or later)
>
> Does it get any better with make -j128 build jobs? Peter just fixed
The compile 'problem' is on my workstation, which is a dual core Intel
core 2. I use -j4 on that typically. On the bigger boxes, I don't notice
any interactivity problems, largely because I don't run anything latency
sensitive on those :-)
> a bug in the SMP load-balancer that can cause interactivity problems
> on large CPU count systems.
Worth trying on the dual core box?
--
Jens Axboe
--
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