On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:34, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > Hi, Hi > here are kernbench results: Nice to see you using kernbench :) > ./kernbench -M -o 128 > [..] > Average Optimal -j 128 Load Run: Was there any reason you chose 128? Optimal usually works out automatically from kernbench to 4x number_cpus. If I recall correctly you have 4 cpus? Not sure what 128 represents. Cheers, Con - 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: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6
- From: Michal Piotrowski <[email protected]>
- Re: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6
- References:
- [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6
- From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
- Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6
- From: Michal Piotrowski <[email protected]>
- Re: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6
- From: Michal Piotrowski <[email protected]>
- [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6
- Prev by Date: Re: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6
- Next by Date: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: Problems with connect/disconnect cycles
- Previous by thread: Re: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6
- Next by thread: Re: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6
- Index(es):
