* Satoru Takeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are welcome. I can use larger machine by chance, and also tested
> there just now.
>
> Test environment
> ================
>
> - kernel: 2.6.21-rc6-CFS
> - run time: 300 secs
> - # of CPU: 12
> - # of processes: 200 or 2400
>
> Result
> ===================================
>
> +----------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
> | # of | # of | avg | max | min | stdev |
> | CPUs | processes | | | | |
> +----------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
> | | 200 | 2250 | 2348 | 2204 | 64 |
> | 12(ia64) +-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
> | | 2400 | 187.5 | 197 | 176 | 4.3 |
> +----------+-----------+-------+------+------+--------+
>
> Looks like good too.
yeah. The spread between min and max is 11%, the spread between stddev
and avg is 2.2%, which is quite OK for so many tasks.
> BTW, I've a question. Actually this problem is fixed on CFS and DS.
> However they are mostly written from scratch and doeesn't suitable for
> stable version, for example 2.6.20.X. Can your other patch be
> compromise for stable version? Although that patch is not perfect, but
> I think it's preferable to leave it alone.
i'm afraid that small patch is not suitable for a general purpose Linux
release (it hits interactivity way too much) - that's what this
years-long struggle was about. But you could apply it to a special
server-centric kernel.
Ingo
-
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/
