Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3

[Nick Piggin]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:40:15 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > * Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > So both -mm5 and Ingo's sched.patch are much worse than
> > > > what 2.4 and 2.6 get?
> > >
> > > Yes (2.6 vanilla and 2.4-aa at that, i haven't tested 2.4-vanilla)
> > >
> > > Ingo's sched.patch makes it a bit better (from 1x CPU to 1.5-1.7xCPU),
> > > but still much worse than the max of 3.7x-4x CPU bandwidth.
> >
> > Andi, could you please try the patch below - this will test whether this
> > has to do with the rate of balancing between NUMA nodes. The patch
> > itself is not correct (it way overbalances on NUMA), but it tests the
> > theory.
>
>
> This works much better, but wildly varying (my tests go from 2.8xCPU to 
> ~3.8x CPU for 4 CPUs. 2,3 CPU cases are ok). A bit more consistent 
> results would be better though.

Oh good, thanks Ingo. Andi you probably want to lower your minimum
balance time too then, and maybe try with an even lower maximum.
Maybe reduce cache_hot_time a bit too.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/