Re: [quad core results] BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks andmeasurements

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:24:29 +0200
Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 07:45 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:41:51 +0300
> > > >It shows similar curves and behavior to the 8-core results i
> > > >posted 
> > > >- BFS is slower than mainline in virtually every measurement.
> > > >The ratios are different for different parts of the graphs - but
> > > >the trend is similar.
> > > 
> > > Dude, not cool.
> > > 
> > > 1. Quad HT is not the same as a 4-core desktop, you're doing it
> > > with 8 cores 
> > 
> > 4 cores, 8 threads. Which is basically the standard desktop cpu
> > going forward... (4 cores already is today, 8 threads is that any
> > day now)
> 
> Except on your typical smartphone, which will run linux and probably
> vastly outnumber the number of "traditional" linux desktops.

yeah the trend in cellphones is only quad core without HT, not quad
core WITH ht ;-)



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/