Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:17:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:17:30 -0500 Received: from h24-77-26-115.gv.shawcable.net ([24.77.26.115]:3727 "EHLO phalynx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:17:15 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ryan Cumming To: Adam Keys , "Partha Narayanan" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Performance Results for Ingo's O(1)-scheduler Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:16:28 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.8] Cc: mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: <20020122035540.ZUVU10199.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@there> In-Reply-To: <20020122035540.ZUVU10199.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@there> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200201212016.29055.bodnar42@phalynx.dhs.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On January 21, 2002 19:55, Adam Keys wrote: > I'm curious about the performance of the 4-way and 8-way systems. I know > nothing about this benchmark. IIRC correctly it simulates chat clients > connecting to a server and talking to each other. Is it a CPU, memory, or > disk bound benchmark? What is causing the 4-way machines to be only 2x the > performance of the 1-way machine and the 8-way machines to be < 3x the > performance? Is the system bus the limiting factor on those machines? Memory bus, lock contention, syncronization issues. SMP really isn't as magical as people think after the overhead is taken in to account. -Ryan - 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/