Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ...

From: Mike Kravetz (kravetz@us.ibm.com)
Date: Fri Nov 02 2001 - 11:58:03 EST

Next message: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: vm documentation"
Previous message: Kirill Ratkin: "Re: PCMCIA->USB"
In reply to: Hubertus Franke: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ..."
Next in thread: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ..."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 07:20:36AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
>
> One more. Throughout our MQ evaluation, it was also true that
> the overall performance particularly for large thread counts was
> very sensitive to the goodness function, that why a na_goodness_local
> was introduced.
>

Correct, we did notice measurable differences in performance just
from the additional (unnecessary) checks in goodness. Unfortunately,
the current version of MQ has 3 different (but similar) variations
of the goodness function. This is UGLY, and I intend to clean this
up (without impacting performance of course :).

-- 
Mike
-
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/

Next message: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: vm documentation"
Previous message: Kirill Ratkin: "Re: PCMCIA->USB"
In reply to: Hubertus Franke: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ..."
Next in thread: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ..."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:19 EST