Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754302AbZIGSrY (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:47:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753082AbZIGSrY (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:47:24 -0400 Received: from fifo99.com ([67.223.236.141]:53583 "EHLO fifo99.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751326AbZIGSrX (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:47:23 -0400 Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements From: Daniel Walker To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Michael Buesch , Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Felix Fietkau In-Reply-To: <20090907182629.GA3484@elte.hu> References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> <200909071716.57722.mb@bu3sch.de> <20090907182629.GA3484@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:47:36 -0700 Message-Id: <1252349256.2139.26.camel@desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 562 Lines: 14 On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 20:26 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > That's interesting. I tried to reproduce it on x86, but the profile > does not show any scheduler overhead at all on the server: If the scheduler isn't running the task which causes the lower throughput , would that even show up in profiling output? Daniel -- 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/