Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:53:23 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | RE: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3 |
| |
> We have found some performance regressions (e.g. SPECjbb) with the > scheduler on a large IA-64 NUMA machine, and we are debugging it. On SMP > machines, we haven't seen performance regressions.
Is this the SPECjbb / Java thing that believes that sched_yield is a stable locking primitive? If so, it needs to be ignored ;-) That's the problem we had here, at least ...
M.
> Jun > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andi Kleen [mailto:ak@suse.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:56 PM >> To: Ingo Molnar >> Cc: piggin@cyberone.com.au; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > akpm@osdl.org; >> kernel@kolivas.org; rusty@rustcorp.com.au; Nakajima, Jun; >> ricklind@us.ibm.com; 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, 25 Mar 2004 09:28:09 +0100 >> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >> >>> i've reviewed the sched-domains balancing patches for upstream > inclusion >>> and they look mostly fine. >> >> 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 > >
- 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/
| |