> "Uncle" == Uncle George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I think that you will notice 1000hz on a 75mhz machine. Its probably less
> noticeable on a newer 1gHZ machine. So I suppose this depends on the
> evolutionary point of processors that you want to try this on.
> Maybe Linux needs a
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 02:14:37PM -0500, Uncle George wrote:
> Maybe Linux needs a scheduler module?
http://resourcemanagement.unixsolutions.hp.com/WaRM/schedpolicy.html
regards
john
--
"They eat cold meat for breakfast and make jokes about gzip."
- Rik Hemsley on KDE developers
-
I think what you see is that when your wait expires, you will be
scheduled within the next 1/1000 sec ( in reality when the clock tick
happens, the scheduler looks at the expired timers, and reschedules ).
So if your timer expires at the beginning of a clock cycle, you may have
to wait to the next
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 01:18:17PM -0800, Veda Narayanan wrote:
> All,
> I agree with jim. We need to share information about this as this have
> direct impact on java/linux combination as a Enterprise platform. This
> should be addressed in a broad spectrum than just changing a parameter in
Hello all,
I need to build the Jdk 1.1.8 on a x86 linux box. Where can i get the diff's
?. I am looking for them at blackdown, and i am unable to locate them. Any
pointers will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards
- asit
All,
I agree with jim. We need to
share information about this as this have direct impact on java/linux
combination as a Enterprise platform. This should be addressed in a broad
spectrum than just changing a parameter in kernel, though I'm interested in the
kernel tweak.
Lets pos
Why not have this discussion on this list? It seems to directly impact Java. The relationship between the Linux scheduler and Java is pretty important. IBM has produced some scheduler kernel mods to improve JVM performance. These are a bit more complicated than just cranking some params, bu
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Jim Hazen wrote:
> That's a good point. However on my Dual 450 there seems to be no
> performance loss with these new settings. In fact things seem a bit
> more responsive. I'm not sure exactly why, but my guess would be
> extensive use of 'wait and not
That's a good point. However on my Dual 450 there seems to be no performance loss with these new settings. In fact things seem a bit more responsive. I'm not sure exactly why, but my guess would be extensive use of 'wait and notify' in various programs. Before there was a 10ms penalty if on
ce of the machine, are
> there any downsides?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Hazen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: February 18, 2002 8:46 PM
> To: Blackdown
> Subject: Re: Why do threads take so long to wake up
> underlinux
>
>
How
does this affect the rest of the performance of the machine, are there any
downsides?
-Original Message-From: Jim Hazen
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: February 18, 2002 8:46
PMTo: BlackdownSubject: Re: Why do threads take so long
to wake up underlinuxOk, I've rebuild t
Ok, I've rebuild the a kernel with HZ 1000 (and bumped CLOCKS_PER_SEC to 1000 too).
The output is now closer to what one would expect. Also if you always sleep for 10ms, you get a total time of 10 ms for nearly every run (some runs were 11-13ms, but most ~27 were 10).
Hope this helps. I
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 10:07:59AM -0800, Fengguang Song wrote:
>
> It's interesting. Did anybody try rebuilding the kernel with HZ=1000?
> I'm also curious about it.
Well I've done this long time ago - it helps for the 'sleep' case
however linux latency might be quite huge thus it could be stu
; BTW, does the fix proposed to change the kernel with HZ=1000 worked??
>
> Reg
> Ved
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin, Stephen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:55 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Why do thre
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:55 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Why do threads take so long to wake up underlinux
I've been doing some benchmarks on my machine (a dual 733 running redhat
7.2)
and there seems to be a 20 millisecond penalty for doing a sleep or a wai
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:54:45PM -0500, Martin, Stephen wrote:
> I've been doing some benchmarks on my machine (a dual 733 running redhat
> 7.2)
> and there seems to be a 20 millisecond penalty for doing a sleep or a wait.
> Here
> This is pretty much consistent on all jvms that i've tried black
I've been doing some benchmarks on my machine (a dual 733 running redhat
7.2)
and there seems to be a 20 millisecond penalty for doing a sleep or a wait.
Here
is code that illustrates it:
try {
for (int i = 0; i < 30; i++) {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
17 matches
Mail list logo
