RE: [RFC][PATCH] sched: aggressive idle balance

[Chen, Kenneth W]

Andrew Theurer wrote on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 12:17 PM
>
> So far we have seen 3-5% with these patches on online transaction workolads
> and no regressions on SDET.  Kenneth, I am particularly interested in using
> this with your increased cache_hot_time value, where you got your best
> throughput:
>
> ...but still had idle time.  Do you think you could try these patches with
> your 25ms cache_hot_time?  I think your workload could benefit from both the
> longer cache_hot_time for busy cpus, but more aggressive idle balances,
> hopefully driving your workload to 100% cpu utilization.

Looks interesting, I will queue this up on our benchmark setup.

- Ken


-
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/