On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 02:23:05PM -0500, Bill Hartner wrote:
> Mike K, wrote :
>
> >
> > If the above is accurate, then I am wondering what would be a
> > good scheduler benchmark for these low task count situations.
> > I could undo the optimizations in sys_sched_yield() (for testing
> > purpos
Hubertus wrote :
> The only problem I have with sched_yield like benchmarks is that it
creates
> artificial lock contention as we basically spent most of the time other
> then context switching + syscall under the scheduler lock. This we won't
> see in real apps, that's why I think the chatroom
Mike,
Deactivating that optimization is a good idea.
What we are interested in is what the general latency of the scheduler code
is. This should help to determine that.
The only problem I have with sched_yield like benchmarks is that it creates
artificial lock contention as we basically spent m
Mike K, wrote :
>
> If the above is accurate, then I am wondering what would be a
> good scheduler benchmark for these low task count situations.
> I could undo the optimizations in sys_sched_yield() (for testing
> purposes only!), and run the existing benchmarks. Can anyone
> suggest a better s
4 matches
Mail list logo
