From: Vincent Pelletier <vincent.plr@wanadoo.fr>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 01:30:53 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4
References: <200609031541.39984.subdino2004@yahoo.fr> <200609031910.57259.vincent.plr@wanadoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <200609031910.57259.vincent.plr@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200609070130.53995.vincent.plr@wanadoo.fr>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 892
Lines: 17

I found one maybe-drawback to this change :
When runing n+1 process (n = number of cpu), one takes one cpu, the other 2 
share another cpu. And, because of this patch, all processes stay in their 
own cpu, so one always has 100% of cpu power, the 2 others get 50% each.
In current implementation, one of the 2 processes from the same cpu would 
migrate to the other cpu, and so on, somehow sharing cpu time among them.
Is it a feature or a side effect of current implementation ?

I'll do some tests soon to see which version gives better performance at a 
higher level than just process migration cost - if different at all.
-- 
Vincent Pelletier
-
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/