* David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:11:35 +0100 > > > Ouch, +4% from a oneliner networking change? That's a _huge_ speedup > > compared to the things we were after in scheduler land. > > The scheduler has accounted for at least %10 of the tbench > regressions at this point, what are you talking about? yeah, you are probably right when it comes to task migration policy impact - that can have effects in that range. (and that, you have to accept, is a fundamentally hard and fragile job to get right, as it involves observing the past and predicting the future out of it - at 1.3 million events per second) So above i was just talking about straight scheduling code overhead. (that cannot have been +10% of the total - as the whole scheduler only takes 7% total - TLB flush and FPU restore overhead included. Even the hrtimer bits were about 1% of the total.) Ingo -- 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
