Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 22:46:45 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
Message-ID: <20090907204645.GK18599@kernel.dk>
References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> <20090907094953.GP18599@kernel.dk> <4AA54AA7.9080709@redhat.com> <20090907184640.GG18599@kernel.dk> <20090907203627.GA17731@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090907203627.GA17731@elte.hu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1101
Lines: 34

On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Agree, I was actually looking into doing joint latency for X 
> > number of tasks for the test app. I'll try and do that and see if 
> > we can detect something from that.
> 
> Could you please try latest -tip:
> 
>    http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
> 
> (c26f010 or later)
> 
> Does it get any better with make -j128 build jobs? Peter just fixed 

The compile 'problem' is on my workstation, which is a dual core Intel
core 2. I use -j4 on that typically. On the bigger boxes, I don't notice
any interactivity problems, largely because I don't run anything latency
sensitive on those :-)

> a bug in the SMP load-balancer that can cause interactivity problems 
> on large CPU count systems.

Worth trying on the dual core box?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/