On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, James A Simmons wrote:
> Do you still have this patch? Have you though about send it to IBM for
> testing? They had some code in the paper to test the schedular
> performance. So I was wondering also if anyone tried the patch
> on other platforms (PowerPC) to see if they get a performace boost as
> well. One of the points the IBM paper made was about the goodness
> function. Using their code to test performace of the schedular you can see
> from their test results that the goodness function increases linearly with
> the increase number of process. So it would interesting to see how your
> patch changes that behavior.
The patch is coded for 2.3.5 until 2.3.20.
> From their tests under normal load the average number of process on the
> run queue is 32 but it did go up to over 400. The standard deviation was
> 19.2 if I remember right.
When I speak about number of processes I speak as loaded testing processes,
not runqueue processes.
Even in my test the average number of runnable is from 15 to 35.
And remember that my patch has no optimization for CPU cache lines, etc..
I think that supplied with that kinds of optimizations the results will be even
better the ones I measured.
I'm interested in the measuring system implemented by IBM coz I've not spent a
lot of time in my testing console.
IBM guys also have my patch from 2-3 months ago.
Cheers,
Davide.
-- "Debian, the freedom in freedom."- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:21 EST