Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:22:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:22:35 -0500 Received: from samba.sourceforge.net ([198.186.203.85]:5382 "HELO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:22:17 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:17:29 +1100 From: Anton Blanchard To: Rusty Russell Cc: Alan Cox , davej@suse.de, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Linux HMT analysis Message-ID: <20011209001729.GA3934@krispykreme> In-Reply-To: <20011208214631.75573e9a.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011208214631.75573e9a.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Anton, can you put the dbench graphs somewhere public? Here they are: http://samba.org/~anton/linux/HMT/ The machine is a 4 way RS64 (ppc64) box, with HMT enabled so Linux thinks it has 8 cpus. Since HMT is not an intel only problem it would be nice to solve this in a slightly more generic way than #if defined(__i386__) && defined(CONFIG_SMP). Otherwise there will shortly be yet another hack in the scheduler surrounded by #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64_HMT :) Its pretty obvious what they are trying to achieve (its always preferrable to schedule 2 tasks on separate physical cpus rather than sharing the same one), but their change does not seem to have the required outcome. Do we have any results showing the improvement this change made or did we just accept the changes? Anton - 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/