Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Dunno about the IO bits, but..
>  
> The problem with the C++ testcases seems to be wake_up_all() plunking a 
> genuine thundering herd onto runqueues.  The sleeper fairness logic 
> places the entire herd left of min_vruntime, meaning N*sched_latency 
> pain for the poor sods who are setting the runqueue pace.

100 wakeup pairs that all run and ping-pong between each other?

That creates 200 tasks with an average system load of 100.0, on a 
dual-core system. Is that a fair representation of some real workload, or 
just an unrealistic "gee, look, given enough tasks running I can overload 
the system _this bad_" example?

	Ingo
--
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/