Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted text
>> However, I fail to understand the goal of the reproducer. Granted it shows
>> irregularities in the scheduler under such conditions, but what *real*
>> workload would spend its time sequentially creating then immediately killing
>> threads, never using more than 2 at a time ?
>>
>> If this could be turned into a DoS, I could understand, but here it looks
>> a bit pointless :-/
> 
> It seems generally unfortunate that it takes longer for a new thread to
> move over to the second cpu even when the first is busy with the original
> thread. I can certainly see cases where this causes suboptimal overall
> system behaviour.
> 
I think the moving to another CPU gets really dependent on the CPU type. 
On a P4+HT the caches are shared, and moving costs almost nothing for 
cache hits, while on CPUs which have other cache layouts the migration 
cost is higher. Obviously multi-core should be cheaper than 
multi-socket, by avoiding using the system memory bus, but it still can 
get ugly.

I have an IPC test around which showed that, it ran like hell on HT, and 
progressively worse as cache because less shared. I wonder why the 
latest git works so much better?

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/