Wednesday, January 19, 2000 5:05 PM
James A Simmons <jsimmons@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote :
> I read it. It was a excellent paper. I'm amazed by just rearranging the
> data in task_struct it reduces the time in the schedular up to 30% on
> Pentium II. I have the patch included below. Anyone working on a
> many-to-many model for threads for linux?
Hi guys,
I've seen the article made by Ray Bryant with Bill Hartner about scheduler
performance.
On June 1999 I posted a scheduler patch that instead do a linear scan of the
runnable task list,
it "slotify" tasks based on its goodness.
With "only" 300 tasks it'll give me an 80% faster times.
Is my thought that this patch must be included inside the scheduler since it
gives higher performances
with a lot of tasks and a 15 % less with 2 tasks ( at the same amount of
switches / second ).
The fact is that 2 tasks makes a lower switches / second than 300, therefore
the 15% less is relative to a very lower time, so it can be quantified as
about the same performance.
Say that 2 tasks make 10% of switches / second relative to 300 tasks, the 2
tasks case give a lower
performance of about 1.5 % or less.
Now, given the fastest performance with an increasing number of processes,
and given that the number of
tasks a Linux machine must handle today ( SMP, IBM S39 port , etc ... ) I
think that this patch can be useful.
Let me know Your thought about.
Cheers,
Davide Libenzi.
-- Debian, the freedom in freedom.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:20 EST