On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 07:38 +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
quoted text
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 15:22 +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >   
> >> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>     
> >>> Total: 4691827                                Total: 3942000
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> Thanks. Unfortunately the test was buggy, it bound the tasks to the 
> >> wrong cpu :-(
> >> Could you run it again? Actually 1 cpu and 4 cpus are probably enough.
> >>     
> >
> > Sure.  (ran as before, hopefully no transcription errors)
> >
> >   
> Thanks:
> sysv sem:
> - 2.6.22 had almost linear scaling (up to 4 cores).
> - 2.6.24.3 scales to 2 cpus, then it collapses. with 4 cores, it's 75% 
> slower than 2.6.22.
> 
> sysv msg:
> - neither 2.6.22 nor 2.6.24 scale very good. That's more or less 
> expected, the message queue code contains a few global statistic 
> counters (msg_hdrs, msg_bytes).

Actually, 2.6.22 is fine, and 2.6.24.3 is not, just as sysv sem.  I just
noticed that pmsg didn't get recompiled last night (fat finger) , and
sent a correction. 
 
	-Mike

--
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/