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

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:26, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> 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

> After: 5569 messages per second

Can you check schedstats or otherwise to find if volanomark uses 
sched_yield() ? When last this benchmark came up, it appeared that no jvm 
used futexes and left locking to yielding. We really should find out if that 
is the case before trying to optimise for this benchmark.

Cheers,
Con

Attachment: pgpVbaAlXNcaY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• References:
  • Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: inter_module_get and __symbol_get
• Next by Date: Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] Where is place of arch independed companion chips?
• Previous by thread: Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2
• 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]