Re: HT schedulers' performance on single HT processor

[Nathan Fredrickson]

On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 19:55, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Well since you asked... I've been looking for someone with more HT cpus to give
> a much simpler approach a try. Here's a sample patch for vanilla test11 with
> HT. This one actually helps UP HT performance ever so slightly and I'd be
> curious to see if it does anything on more cpus.

Not much change with this patch.  The new result is most similar to
vanilla test11 with HT.  Both perform worse than no-HT under partial
load.  Here are the results from earlier with the new test case
appended:

          X =  1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    16
1phys UP      1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00
4phys SMP     1.00  0.99  0.51  0.35  0.27  0.27  0.27  0.27  0.27  0.27
4phys HT      1.01  1.00  0.55  0.40  0.33  0.29  0.27  0.26  0.25  0.26
4phys HT(w26) 1.01  1.01  0.54  0.37  0.31  0.27  0.26  0.26  0.26  0.26
4phys HT(C1)  1.01  1.00  0.52  0.36  0.29  0.28  0.27  0.26  0.25  0.26
4phys HT(ht3) 1.01  1.00  0.53  0.39  0.33  0.29  0.27  0.26  0.26  0.26

Nathan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/