>> I repeated the tests with your B0 version and it's still not
>> satisfying. Maybe too aggressive NODE_REBALANCE_IDLE_TICK, maybe the
>> difference is that the other calls of load_balance() never have the
>> chance to balance across nodes.
>
> Nope, I found the problem. The topo cleanups are broken - we end up
> taking all mem accesses, etc to node 0.
Kernbench:
Elapsed User System CPU
2.5.59 20.032s 186.66s 47.73s 1170%
2.5.59-ingo-mjb 19.986s 187.044s 48.592s 1178.8%
NUMA schedbench 4:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59 0.00 36.38 90.70 0.62
2.5.59-ingo-mjb 0.00 34.70 88.58 0.69
NUMA schedbench 8:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59 0.00 42.78 249.77 1.85
2.5.59-ingo-mjb 0.00 49.33 256.59 1.69
NUMA schedbench 16:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59 0.00 56.84 848.00 2.78
2.5.59-ingo-mjb 0.00 65.67 875.05 3.58
NUMA schedbench 32:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59 0.00 116.36 1807.29 5.75
2.5.59-ingo-mjb 0.00 142.77 2039.47 8.42
NUMA schedbench 64:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59 0.00 240.01 3634.20 14.57
2.5.59-ingo-mjb 0.00 293.48 4534.99 20.62
System times are little higher (multipliers are set at busy = 10,
idle = 10) .... I'll try setting the idle multipler to 100, but
the other thing to do would be into increase the cross-node migrate
resistance by setting some minimum imbalance offsets. That'll
probably have to be node-specific ... something like the number
of cpus per node ... but probably 0 for the simple HT systems.
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:17 EST