Ingo wrote:
> how close are these numbers to the real worst-case migration costs on
> that box? What are the cache sizes and what is their hierarchies?
> ...
> is there any workload that shows the same scheduling related performance
> regressions, other than Ken's $1m+ benchmark kit?
I'll have to talk to some people Monday and get back to you.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- RE: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels
- From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]>
- [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- RE: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels
- Prev by Date: Re: Use of C99 int types
- Next by Date: Re: Use of C99 int types
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- Next by thread: RE: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- Index(es):
 |