Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- From: Ludovic Drolez <ludovic.drolez@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:24:28 +0200
Vincent Pelletier wrote:
Maybe I was completely wrong with my assumption that one running process always has an impact of 1, which would have make the scheduler underestimate the load on one cpu and put too many processes on it, without moving them afterward.
Yes, maybe that's the problem, since in my bench, one process takes only 40% of the CPU.
Cheers,
--
Ludovic DROLEZ Linbox / Free&ALter Soft
www.linbox.com www.linbox.org tel: +33 3 87 50 87 90
152 rue de Grigy - Technopole Metz 2000 57070 METZ
-
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- From: Antonio Vargas
- Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- References:
- [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- From: Vincent Pelletier
- Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- From: Antonio Vargas
- Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- From: Ludovic Drolez
- Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- From: Vincent Pelletier
- [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- Prev by Date: Do you want elite virginn Woman?
- Next by Date: 2.6.1[78] page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
