Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750831AbWIVHYd (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:24:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750835AbWIVHYd (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:24:33 -0400 Received: from fbxmetz.linbox.com ([81.56.128.63]:26079 "EHLO fbxmetz.linbox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750831AbWIVHYc (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:24:32 -0400 Message-ID: <45138FAC.30700@linbox.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:24:28 +0200 From: Ludovic Drolez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20060628 Debian/1.7.8-1sarge7.1 X-Accept-Language: fr, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vincent Pelletier CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP References: <200609031541.39984.subdino2004@yahoo.fr> <69304d110609191050w777a5c48ibe84bc0e3ce65df3@mail.gmail.com> <4510F0FD.4060602@linbox.com> <200609212036.24856.vincent.plr@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <200609212036.24856.vincent.plr@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 825 Lines: 20 Vincent Pelletier wrote: > Maybe I was completely wrong with my assumption that one running process > always has an impact of 1, which would have make the scheduler underestimate > the load on one cpu and put too many processes on it, without moving them > afterward. Yes, maybe that's the problem, since in my bench, one process takes only 40% of the CPU. Cheers, -- Ludovic DROLEZ Linbox / Free&ALter Soft www.linbox.com www.linbox.org tel: +33 3 87 50 87 90 152 rue de Grigy - Technopole Metz 2000 57070 METZ - 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/