Re: [GIT PULL] sched/core for v2.6.32

[Jesper Juhl]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 00:07 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > It was a statistical property based on performance considerations - 
> > > and now we flipped it around based on latency and for kbuild 
> > > performance/throughput reasons: Serge Belyshev reported a 7% 
> > > increase on a quad due to this change and i measured a 1.5% 
> > > peak-kbuild performance increase.
> > > 
> > Impressive. I wouldn't have expected that much gain by running the parent 
> > first. Actually I personally would have expected child-first to perform 
> > better since (in my experience) it's usually the child that's just forked 
> > that matters the most.
> 
> How can waiting for child1 to run a bit before forking off child2 _not_
> hurt?  The parent is the worker bee creator, the queen bee if you will.
> Seems to me that making the queen wait until one egg hatches and ages a
> bit before laying another egg is a very bad plan if the goal is to have
> a hive full of short lived worker bees.
> 
When I wrote the above, I was thinking of one specific case; a server that 
receives a request, forks off a child to handle the request and the 
performance we measure is of how long it takes to handle that single 
request - and in that specific scenario we want the child to run as soon 
as possible.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>             http://www.chaosbits.net/
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/