Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org> said:
> Robert Dinse wrote:
[...]
> > Since the scheduler is adaptive, the new code, other than the
> > test, is only going to executed under the heavy load conditions.
> > Surely the test isn't 1kbyte or anywhere close to it?
> A partially good point, but flawed.
> In the reasonable load case most of the new code won't necessarily get
> into the cache, so it should have little impact.
But one instruction more to fetch from RAM is a _huge_ cost, relatively
speaking. There is also the cost of making sure this whole machinery works
right each time it is tweaked.
> Now consider the high load case. A high load means the machine is being
> crippled by multiple number crunching activities creating a compute
> requirement beyond the system's reasonable means. [...]
And this being so, no amount of tweaking will fix it. Leave it alone, that
is simpler and has the same result: You need a a bigger machine.
-- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616- 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 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:23 EST