Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:45:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:45:31 -0500 Received: from tapu.f00f.org ([66.60.186.129]:22982 "EHLO tapu.f00f.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:45:31 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 15:52:29 -0800 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Alan Cox Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Dave Hansen , lkml Subject: Re: [lart] /bin/ps output Message-ID: <20021116235229.GA32765@tapu.f00f.org> References: <3DA798B6.9070400@us.ibm.com> <20021116092424.GY22031@holomorphy.com> <1037491895.24777.26.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1037491895.24777.26.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-No-Archive: Yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 894 Lines: 23 On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:11:35AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > Bill - so what happens if you trim down the aio, event and ksoftirqd > threads to a sane size (you might also want to do something about > the fact 2.5 still runs ksoftirq too easily). Intuitively I'd go for > a square root of the number of processors + 1 sort of function but > what do the benchmarks say ? IMO having various threads per-CPU is getting silly for (say) 4+ CPUs. Even for two CPUs it means quite a good number of kernel threads. Does anyone really know for certain that this is necessary versus having few per-CPU threads calling into state-machine functions? --cw - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/