Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3 | Date | Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:31:37 -0800 | From | "Nakajima, Jun" <> |
| |
Andi,
Can you be more specific with "it doesn't load balance threads aggressively enough"? Or what behavior of the base NUMA scheduler is missing in the sched-domain scheduler especially for NUMA?
Jun
>-----Original Message----- >From: Andi Kleen [mailto:ak@suse.de] >Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:47 AM >To: Rick Lindsley >Cc: Andi Kleen; Ingo Molnar; piggin@cyberone.com.au; linux- >kernel@vger.kernel.org; akpm@osdl.org; kernel@kolivas.org; >rusty@rustcorp.com.au; Nakajima, Jun; anton@samba.org; lse- >tech@lists.sourceforge.net; mbligh@aracnet.com >Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2- >A3 > >On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:40:22AM -0800, Rick Lindsley wrote: >> The main problem it has is that it performs quite badly on Opteron >NUMA >> e.g. in the OpenMP STREAM test (much worse than the normal scheduler) >> >> Andi, I've got some schedstat code which may help us to understand why. >> I'll need to port it to Ingo's changes, but if I drop you a patch in a >> day or two can you try your test on sched-domain/non-sched-domain, >> collecting the stats? > >The openmp failure is already pretty well understood - it doesn't load >balance >threads aggressively enough over CPUs after startup. > >-Andi - 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/
| |