lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: [patch] scheduler fix for 1cpu/node case
    Date
    > >AMD is 1 because there's no need to balance within a node, so I want the
    > >inter-node balance frequency to be as often as it was with just O(1).
    > > This interval would not work well with other NUMA boxes, so that's the
    > > main reason to have arch specific intervals.
    >
    > OK, I misread the patch. IIRC AMD has 1 CPU per node? If so, why doesn't
    > this simply prevent balancing within a node?

    Yes, one cpu/node. Oh, it does prevent it, but with the current intervals, we
    end up not really balancing as often (since we need a inter-node balance),
    and when we call load_balance in schedule when idle, we don't balance at all
    since it's only a node local balance.

    > > And, as a general guideline, boxes with
    > >different local-remote latency ratios will probably benefit from different
    > >inter-node balance intervals. I don't know what these ratios are, but I'd
    > >like the kernel to have the ability to change for one arch and not affect
    > >another.
    >
    > I fully appreciate there are huge differences... I am curious if
    > you can see much improvements in practice.

    I think AMD would be the first good test. Maybe Andi has some results on
    numasched vs O(1), which would be a good indication.
    -
    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 13:48    [W:0.022 / U:62.568 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site