Are you testing this with Tom's code, you need to do a baseline
measurement with 10 and then increase it, you will still get lots of cs,
but it will be less.
Dave
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 20:03, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dave,
>
> > Yeah, I did some more testing myself, and actually get better numbers
> > with increasing spins per delay to 1000, but my suspicion is that it is
> > highly dependent on finding the right delay for the processor you are
> > on.
>
> Well, it certainly didn't help here:
>
> procs memory swap io system cpu
> r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
> 2 0 0 14870744 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1027 187341 48 27
> 26 0
> 2 0 0 14869912 123872 1129912 0 0 0 48 1030 126490 65 18
> 16 0
> 2 0 0 14867032 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1021 106046 72 16
> 12 0
> 2 0 0 14869912 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1025 90256 76 14 10
> 0
> 2 0 0 14870424 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1022 135249 63 22
> 16 0
> 2 0 0 14872664 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1023 131111 63 20
> 17 0
> 1 0 0 14871128 123872 1129912 0 0 0 48 1024 155728 57 22
> 20 0
> 2 0 0 14871128 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1028 189655 49 29
> 22 0
> 2 0 0 14871064 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1018 190744 48 29
> 23 0
> 2 0 0 14871064 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1027 186812 51 26
> 23 0
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
