Paul Jackson wrote:
Ok - that flies, or at least walks. It took 53 seconds to compute this cost matrix.
Not that I really know what I'm talking about here, but this sounds highly parallelizable. It seems like you could do N/2 measurements at a time, so this should be O(N) to compute the matrix (ignoring issues of how long it takes to write the data to memory, but that should be insignificant).
Even if you can't parallelize it all the way, it ought to at least help. --Andy - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- 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: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH][SELINUX] Add name_connect permission check
- Next by Date: Re: How to make linux ping behaves like MS ping?
- 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):
 |