Nick wrote:
> In a sense, the information *is* already there - in node_distance.
> What I think should be done is probably to use node_distance when
> calculating costs, ...
Hmmm ... perhaps I'm confused, but this sure sounds like the alternative
implementation of cpu_distance using node_distance that I submitted to
this thread about 16 hours ago. It was using this alternative that
got me the more varied matrix:
---------------------
[00] [01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06] [07]
[00]: - 4.0(0) 21.7(1) 21.7(1) 25.2(2) 25.2(2) 25.3(3) 25.3(3)
[01]: 4.0(0) - 21.7(1) 21.7(1) 25.2(2) 25.2(2) 25.3(3) 25.3(3)
[02]: 21.7(1) 21.7(1) - 4.0(0) 25.3(3) 25.3(3) 25.2(2) 25.2(2)
[03]: 21.7(1) 21.7(1) 4.0(0) - 25.3(3) 25.3(3) 25.2(2) 25.2(2)
[04]: 25.2(2) 25.2(2) 25.3(3) 25.3(3) - 4.0(0) 21.7(1) 21.7(1)
[05]: 25.2(2) 25.2(2) 25.3(3) 25.3(3) 4.0(0) - 21.7(1) 21.7(1)
[06]: 25.3(3) 25.3(3) 25.2(2) 25.2(2) 21.7(1) 21.7(1) - 4.0(0)
[07]: 25.3(3) 25.3(3) 25.2(2) 25.2(2) 21.7(1) 21.7(1) 4.0(0) -
---------------------
--
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/
- 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: [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: Nick Piggin <[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: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- RE: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- Next by Date: Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- 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):
 |