Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 at 17:02:07 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> do wakeup-balancing only if the wakeup-CPU is idle.
>
> this prevents excessive wakeup-balancing while the system is highly
> loaded, but helps spread out the workload on partly idle systems.

I tested this with Volanomark on dual-processor PII Xeon -- the
results were very bad:

Before: 5863 messages per second

124169 schedule                                  64.1369
 64663 _spin_unlock_irqrestore                  4041.4375
  7949 tcp_clean_rtx_queue                        6.5370
  6787 net_rx_action                             24.9522
 
After: 5569 messages per second

139417 schedule                                  72.0129
 82169 _spin_unlock_irqrestore                  5135.5625
  9949 tcp_clean_rtx_queue                        8.1817
  7917 net_rx_action                             29.1066

__
Chuck
-
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:
  • Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2
    • From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [git patches] new wireless stuffs
• Next by Date: Re: Heads up for distro folks: PCMCIA hotplug differences (Re: -rc4: arm broken?)
• Previous by thread: [git patches] new wireless stuffs
• Next by thread: Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]