Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261937AbUKBVcJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:32:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261933AbUKBVb5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:31:57 -0500 Received: from fmr04.intel.com ([143.183.121.6]:38295 "EHLO caduceus.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261976AbUKBVbH (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:31:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200411022126.iA2LQIq17357@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: "'Andrew Theurer'" , , , "Nick Piggin" , Cc: Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH] sched: aggressive idle balance Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:29:52 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcTBGQamiIpc72EvSHmRPO0laO+SkAACaPqQ In-Reply-To: <200411021416.38119.habanero@us.ibm.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 914 Lines: 22 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/