Re: [PATCH] scheduler patch, faster still

Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Mon, 28 Sep 1998 00:03:12 -0600

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: ketil@ii.uib.no: "Re: Building Big Ass Linux Machine, what are the limits?"
Previous message: Manoj Apte: ""The Linux Kernel" document. (bug)"
Maybe in reply to: Rik van Riel: "[PATCH] scheduler patch, faster still"
Next in thread: Larry McVoy: "Re: [PATCH] scheduler patch, faster still"

"Michael L. Galbraith" <mikeg@weiden.de>:
: > Do you have a result with an instrumented schedule()? If not, why not?
:
: These are from a fully instrumented kernel. (and with Rik's patch)

[results deleted]

Umm, unless I'm being dense, there isn't any way I can make sense from
those results. In order for them to be meaningful, I'd need to see an
instrumented kernel without the changes vs an instrumented kernel with
the changes for varying run queue depths.

-
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/

Next message: ketil@ii.uib.no: "Re: Building Big Ass Linux Machine, what are the limits?"
Previous message: Manoj Apte: ""The Linux Kernel" document. (bug)"
Maybe in reply to: Rik van Riel: "[PATCH] scheduler patch, faster still"
Next in thread: Larry McVoy: "Re: [PATCH] scheduler patch, faster still"