Take me off this email. Thank you
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> [mailto:owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu]On Behalf Of Mike Karmyshev
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 3:21 AM
> To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: static int's for proc_change_penalty and tlb_flush_penalty
>
>
> James Manning wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking about making the penalties in goodness() for
> processor
> > change and TLB flushes into static int's and putting them into /proc
> > for ppl to be able to "tune" their SMP scheduler (and to find out
> with
> > some user feedback if there are more appropriate defaults for them,
> > or whether it should really be settable per-system) but realized
> that
> > even as a pair of static int's, the misses of that cache line may be
> > adverse enough to ruin any chance of this being a worth-while
> change,
> > so I wanted to get your opinion on this.
> >
> > Since these are just scheduling policy changes, atomicity WRT the
> int's
> > shouldn't matter (although the /proc change function should keep
> some
> > reasonable bounds)
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > James
> Oops,I've already done it for testing purposes three or maybe four
> months ago,when I had an Abit BP6 motherboard at home. Moved CPU
> change
> penalty from constant to sysctl to be able to change it on the
> fly.It seems to me that
> changing PENALTY value doesn't affect SMP performance too much.The
> difference was less than
> 2% on PVMPovray benchmark.
> Somebody still wondering about it?
> --
> WBR,Mike
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:24 EST