On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, David Miller wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:01:19 +0100 > > > The scheduler's overhead barely even registers on a 16-way x86 system > > i'm running tbench on. Here's the NMI profile during 64 threads tbench > > on a 16-way x86 box with an v2.6.28-rc5 kernel [config attached]: > > Try a non-NMI profile. > > It's the whole of the try_to_wake_up() path that's the problem. David, that makes no sense. A NMI profile is going to be a _lot_ more accurate than a non-NMI one. Asking somebody to do a clearly inferior profile to get "better numbers" is insane. We've asked _you_ to do NMI profiling, it shouldn't be the other way around. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
