On 05/02/2013 03:10 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> >> I've done the test for several times, also compared with the throttle >> approach, default 1ms interval still works very well, the regression on >> hackbench start to exceed 2% when interval become 100ms on my box, but >> please note the pgbench already gain a lot benefit at that time. >> >> I think now we could say that wake-affine is useful, and we could not >> simply kill it. > > Oh, it's definitely useful. Communicating tasks deeply resent talking > over interconnects (advanced tin cans and string). My little Q6600 box > can even be described as dinky-numa given enough imagination.. place > communicating tasks on different core2 "nodes" if you will, throughput > falls through the floor. Shared L2 is quick like bunny, dram ain't.
Nice, so we got another proof to defend wake-affine now ;-) Regards, Michael Wang > > -Mike > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
