Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269584AbUIRSHW (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:07:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269606AbUIRSHV (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:07:21 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:39087 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269584AbUIRSHU (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:07:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:07:18 +0200 (MEST) From: Message-Id: To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: hackbench? Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 666 Lines: 26 On http://developer.osdl.org/craiger/hackbench one finds hackbench.c and the result that 2.6 is much better than 2.4 where scheduling is concerned. I was shown results that go in the other direction, so just tried on a machine here. 50 processes 2.4.26: 24 sec 2.6.0t11: 72 sec 2.6.8.1: 120 sec 20 processes 2.4.26: 8.6 sec 2.6.0t11: 29 sec 2.6.8.1: 30 sec This was on a 256 MB 400 MHz Pentium II. Andries - 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/