lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CPU affinity & IPI latency
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 05:36:41PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Be careful tuning for LMbench (says the author :-)
>
> Especially this benchmark. It's certainly possible to get dramatically better
> SMP numbers by pinning all the lat_ctx processes to a single CPU, because
> the benchmark is single threaded. In other words, if we have 5 processes,
> call them A, B, C, D, and E, then the benchmark is passing a token from
> A to B to C to D to E and around again.
>
> If the amount of data/instructions needed by all 5 processes fits in the
> cache and you pin all the processes to the same CPU you'll get much
> better performance than simply letting them float.
>
> But making the system do that naively is a bad idea.

I agree, and can't imagine the system ever attempting to take this
into account and leave these 5 tasks on the same CPU.

At the other extreme is my observation that 2 tasks on an 8 CPU
system are 'round robined' among all 8 CPUs. I think having the
2 tasks stay on 2 of the 8 CPUs would be an improvement with respect
to CPU affinity. Actually, the scheduler does 'try' to do this.

It is clear that the behavior of lat_ctx bypasses almost all of
the scheduler's attempts at CPU affinity. The real question is,
"How often in running 'real workloads' are the schduler's attempts
at CPU affinity bypassed?".

--
Mike Kravetz mkravetz@sequent.com
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site