[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series
    Prakash K. Cheemplavam wrote:
    > Con Kolivas wrote:
    > | I tried this on the latest staircase patch (7.I) and am not getting any
    > | output from your script when tested up to 60 threads on my hardware. Can
    > | you try this version of staircase please?
    > |
    > | There are 7.I patches against 2.6.8-rc4 and 2.6.8-rc4-mm1
    > |
    > |
    > Hi,
    > I just updated to 2.6.8-rc4-ck2 and tried the two options interactive
    > and compute. Is the compute stuff functional? I tried setting it to 1
    > within X and after that X wasn't usable anymore (meaning it looked like
    > locked up, frozen/gone mouse cursor even). I managed to switch back to
    > console and set it to 0 and all was OK again.

    Compute is very functional. However it isn't remotely meant to be run on
    a desktop because of very large scheduling latencies (on purpose).

    > The interactive to 0 setting helped me with runnign locally multiple
    > processes using mpi. Nevertheless (only with interactive 1 regression to
    > vanilla scheduler, else same) can't this be enhanced?

    I don't understand your question. Can what be enhanced?

    > Details: I am working on a load balancing class using mpi. For testing
    > purpises I am running multiple processes on my machine. So for a given
    > problem I can say, it needs x time to solve. Using more processes opn a
    > single machine, this time (except communication and balancing overhead)
    > shouldn't be much larger. Unfortunately this happens. Eg. a given
    > probelm using two processes needs about 20 seconds to finish. But using
    > 8 it already needs 47s (55s with interactiv set to 1). No, my balancing
    > framework is quite good. On a real (small, even larger till 128 nodes
    > tested) cluster overhead is just as low as 3% to 5%, ie. it scales quite
    > linearly.

    Once again I dont quite understand you. Are you saying that there is
    more than 50% cpu overhead when running 8 processes? Or that the cpu is
    distributed unfairly such that the longest will run for 47s?

    > Any idea how to tweak the staircase to get near the 20 seconds with more
    > processes? Or is this rather a problem of mpich used locally?

    Compute mode is by far the most scalable mode in staircase for purely
    computational tasks. The cost is that of interactivity; it is bad on
    purpose since it is a no-compromise maximum cpu cache utilisation policy.

    > If you like I can send you my code to test (beware it is not that small).
    > Cheers,
    > Prakash

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.024 / U:16.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site