![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:40:15 +0200> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > >>* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> 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@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 14:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||