From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:02:59 -0400
To: jyu@cowsay.org, 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <7067ac627950e9421810328770122e0b@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACebkGNqEiGXqAornUx7aXTW3WARoSU-yqBTuA2gkpsHhg0C7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2f40e8ca50e83137d89718948b1b2c4b@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CACebkGNqEiGXqAornUx7aXTW3WARoSU-yqBTuA2gkpsHhg0C7A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] nix scheduler changes
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f2c1b50a-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Nice. Excited to see how a cleaned up + simplified runproc() and the
> per-Mach queues could also change things. Any reason why the ping test
> w/ monmwait wasn't consistent with the performance improvement in
> other areas?

yes there is.  in a later post i describe it, but basically what i saw is that letting
one thread (mach0) get ahead of the others got performance back.  but it does
cost power.  i have a few ideas i am going to try when i get done with the work
i have scheduled for today.

- erik