From owner-freebsd-smp Wed May 1 12:46:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD8237B404 for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g41JkPqE068723; Wed, 1 May 2002 21:46:26 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Andrew Gallatin Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: hlt when idle? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 May 2002 15:34:09 EDT." <15568.17201.80743.521864@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 21:46:25 +0200 Message-ID: <68722.1020282385@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message <15568.17201.80743.521864@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>, Andrew Gallatin writes: >FWIW, I just did a -j8 buildworld with & without HLT. The times were >nearly identical, with the HLT kernel being ~15 seconds faster (real >time) and using 56 seconds less system time. With a sample size of 1, >I admit its hard to make any meaningful performance comparisons; >but the system seems roughly as fast & did not deadlock. > >At least on these machines, the cooler office seems worth the risk ;) > >Drew > >==> world.log.hlt <== > 1757.06 real 1694.33 user 674.49 sys > >==> world.log <== > 1771.65 real 1696.62 user 730.04 sys Your system time looks significant, the other two are a bit too close to judge without a standard deviation. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message