Re: threading question

Davide Libenzi (davidel@xmailserver.org)
Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:44:49 -0700 (PDT)


On 12-Jun-2001 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106121213570.24593-100000@gene.pbi.nrc.ca> you
> wrote:
>> On dual-CPU machines the speedups are as follows: my version
>> is 1.88 faster than the sequential one on IRIX, 1.81 times on Solaris,
>> 1.8 times on OSF/1, 1.43 times on Linux 2.2.x and 1.52 times on Linux 2.4
>> kernel. Why are the numbers on Linux machines so much lower?
>
> Does your measurement include the time needed to actually create the
> threads or do you even frequently create and destroy threads?

This is an extract of the most busy vmstat report running under his tool :

12 0 0 15508 40980 24880 355480 0 0 0 0 141 481 100 0 0
19 0 0 15508 40248 24880 355480 0 0 0 0 142 564 100 0 0
12 0 0 15508 40112 24880 355480 0 0 0 0 150 543 100 0 0
11 0 0 15508 41272 24880 355480 0 0 0 0 156 594 99 1 0
17 0 0 15508 40408 24880 355480 0 0 0 0 156 474 99 1 0
17 0 0 15508 39840 24880 355480 0 0 0 0 135 475 100 0 0
21 0 0 15508 39568 24880 355480 0 0 0 0 125 409 100 0 0
21 0 0 15508 39668 24880 355480 0 0 0 0 135 420 100 0 0
16 0 0 15508 39760 24880 355480 0 0 0 0 149 486 100 0 0

The context switch is very low and the user CPU utilization is 100% , I don't
think it's system responsibility here ( clearly a CPU bound program ).
Even if the runqueue is long, the context switch is low.
I've just close to me a dual PIII 1GHz workstation that run an MTA that uses
linux pthreads with context switching ranging between 5000 and 11000 with a
thread creation rate of about 300 thread/sec ( relaying 600000 msg/hour ).
No problem at all with the system even if the load avg is a bit high
( about 8 ).

- Davide

-
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/