Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP

["Antonio Vargas" <windenntw@gmail.com>]

On 9/22/06, Ludovic Drolez <ludovic.drolez@linbox.com> wrote:
> Vincent Pelletier wrote:
> > Maybe I was completely wrong with my assumption that one running process
> > always has an impact of 1, which would have make the scheduler underestimate
> > the load on one cpu and put too many processes on it, without moving them
> > afterward.
>
> Yes, maybe that's the problem, since in my bench, one process takes only 40% of
> the CPU.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Ludovic DROLEZ                              Linbox / Free&ALter Soft
> www.linbox.com www.linbox.org                 tel: +33 3 87 50 87 90
> 152 rue de Grigy - Technopole Metz 2000                   57070 METZ
> -

Provided you have enough memory, the somewhat better way to test this
is to turn off swap, copy the sources to a tmpfs directory and compile
there. Then any disks accesses would be only related to reloading code
pages from the compiler / daemons /shared libs, which having even more
ram would solve so that it's all compute bound. I guess even 1.5Gb of
ram is plenty for all this, and not so much costly nowdays for a
kernel hacker ;)


--
Greetz, Antonio Vargas aka winden of network

http://network.amigascne.org/
windNOenSPAMntw@gmail.com
thesameasabove@amigascne.org

Every day, every year
you have to work
you have to study
you have to scene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/