Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:58:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:58:18 -0500 Received: from e23.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.229]:51099 "EHLO e23.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:58:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:58:03 -0800 From: Mike Kravetz To: Hubertus Franke Cc: Davide Libenzi , lkml , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH][RFC] Proposal For A More Scalable Scheduler ... Message-ID: <20011102085803.A1150@w-mikek2.des.beaverton.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20011031151243.E1105@w-mikek2.des.beaverton.ibm.com> <20011102072036.D17792@watson.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011102072036.D17792@watson.ibm.com>; from frankeh@watson.ibm.com on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 07:20:36AM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 07:20:36AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote: > > One more. Throughout our MQ evaluation, it was also true that > the overall performance particularly for large thread counts was > very sensitive to the goodness function, that why a na_goodness_local > was introduced. > Correct, we did notice measurable differences in performance just from the additional (unnecessary) checks in goodness. Unfortunately, the current version of MQ has 3 different (but similar) variations of the goodness function. This is UGLY, and I intend to clean this up (without impacting performance of course :). -- Mike - 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/