--Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Saturday, March 19, 2005 14:07:54 -0800):
> "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I don't think these are doing much for performance. Or at least >> *something* in your tree isn't ... >> >> Kernbench: >> Elapsed System User CPU >> elm3b67 2.6.11 50.24 146.60 1117.61 2516.67 >> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm1 52.27 141.14 1099.91 2374.33 >> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm2 51.88 142.41 1104.85 2403.67 >> elm3b67 2.6.11-mm4 51.23 145.04 1100.70 2431.00 >> >> (elm3b67 is a 16x x440 ia32 NUMA system + HT) > > Sounds like the CPU scheduler, yes > >> Is there an easy way to just test those sched changes alone? > > Nick has tossed out and redone all the scheduler patches from -mm4, but I > assume it's all pretty much the same. > > At http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/mbligh.gz is a rollup > (against 2.6.12-rc1) of Kernbench: Elapsed System User CPU elm3b67 2.6.12-rc1 49.02 147.91 1105.49 2556.00 elm3b67 mbligh 52.30 142.24 1105.83 2385.33 That doesn't seem like an improvement ;-) (last run is just adding above patch) I'll try to get you results on a couple more machines, but I'm fighting with the test harness to get it to behave (plus I now have to rerun all the tests with CONFIG_BROKEN turned on to get CONFIG_SCSI_QLOGIC_ISP to work). M. - 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/
