From: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
To: ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: threading question
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:41:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010613004116.A26811@bug.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106121213570.24593-100000@gene.pbi.nrc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106121213570.24593-100000@gene.pbi.nrc.ca>; from ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca on Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 12:24:04PM -0600
Hi!
> I am a summer student implementing a multi-threaded version of a very
> popular bioinformatics tool. So far it compiles and runs without problems
> (as far as I can tell ;) on Linux 2.2.x, Sun Solaris, SGI IRIX and Compaq
> OSF/1 running on Alpha. I have ran a lot of timing tests compared to the
> sequential version of the tool on all of these machines (most of them are
> dual-CPU, although I am also running tests on 12-CPU Solaris and 108 CPU
> SGI IRIX). 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? It is
> the
But this is all different hw, no?
So dual cpu SPARC is more efficient than dual cpu i686. Maybe SPARCs
have faster RAM and slower cpus...
Pavel
--
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-13 9:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-12 18:24 ognen
2001-06-12 18:39 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-06-12 18:57 ` from dmesg: kernel BUG at inode.c:486 Olivier Sessink
2001-06-12 18:58 ` threading question Christoph Hellwig
2001-06-12 19:07 ` ognen
2001-06-12 19:15 ` Kip Macy
2001-06-12 19:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2001-06-12 19:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2001-06-13 12:20 ` Kurt Garloff
2001-06-13 13:35 ` J . A . Magallon
2001-06-13 14:17 ` Philips
2001-06-13 15:06 ` ognen
2001-06-12 21:44 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-06-12 21:48 ` ognen
2001-06-14 18:15 ` Alan Cox
2001-06-14 22:42 ` threading question (results after thread pooling) ognen
2001-06-14 23:00 ` Mike Castle
2001-06-12 21:58 ` threading question Albert D. Cahalan
2001-06-12 23:48 ` J . A . Magallon
2001-06-12 19:06 ` Kip Macy
2001-06-12 19:14 ` Alexander Viro
2001-06-12 19:25 ` Russell Leighton
2001-06-12 23:27 ` Mike Castle
2001-06-13 17:31 ` bert hubert
2001-06-14 6:45 ` Helge Hafting
2001-06-14 18:28 ` Alan Cox
2001-06-14 19:01 ` bert hubert
2001-06-14 19:22 ` Russell Leighton
2001-06-15 11:29 ` Anil Kumar
2001-06-14 23:05 ` J . A . Magallon
2001-06-16 14:16 ` Michael Rothwell
2001-06-16 15:19 ` Alan Cox
2001-06-16 18:33 ` Russell Leighton
2001-06-16 19:06 ` Michael Rothwell
2001-06-16 21:30 ` Coroutines [was Re: threading question] Russell Leighton
2001-06-12 22:41 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2001-06-13 19:05 threading question Hubertus Franke
[not found] <fa.f6da6av.agod3u@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.e54jbkv.kg4r99@ifi.uio.no>
2001-06-16 22:22 ` Dan Maas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010613004116.A26811@bug.ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ognen@gene.pbi.nrc.ca \
--subject='Re: threading question' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).