Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:35 PM
> Wake balancing provides an opportunity to provide some input bias
> into the load balancer.
>
> For example, if you started 100 pairs of tasks which communicate
> through a pipe. On a 2 CPU system without wake balancing, probably
> half of the pairs will be on different CPUs. With wake balancing,
> it should be much better.
Shouldn't the pipe code use synchronous wakeup?
> I hear you might be having problems with recent 2.6.13 kernels? If so,
> it would be really good to have a look that before 2.6.13 goes out the
> door.
Yes I do :-(, apparently bumping up cache_hot_time won't give us the
performance boost we used to see.
- Ken
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |