lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Well, you can easily see suboptimal scheduling decisions on many
> programs with lots of interprocess communication. For example, tbench
> on a dual Xeon:
>
> processes 1 2 3 4
>
> 2.6.13-rc4: 187, 183, 179 260, 259, 256 340, 320, 349 504, 496, 500
> no wake-bal: 180, 180, 177 254, 254, 253 268, 270, 348 345, 290, 500
>
> Numbers are MB/s, higher is better.

i cannot see any difference with/without wake-balancing in this
workload, on a dual Xeon. Could you try the quick hack below and do:

echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic # turn on wake-balancing
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic # turn off wake-balancing
does the runtime switching show any effects on the throughput numbers
tbench is showing? I'm using dbench-3.03. (i only checked the status
numbers, didnt do full runs)

(did you have SCHED_SMT enabled?)

Ingo

kernel/sched.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
Index: linux-prefetch-task/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-prefetch-task.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-prefetch-task/kernel/sched.c
@@ -1155,6 +1155,8 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(task_t * p, un
goto out_activate;

new_cpu = cpu;
+ if (!panic_timeout)
+ goto out_set_cpu;

schedstat_inc(rq, ttwu_cnt);
if (cpu == this_cpu) {
-
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: 2005-07-29 11:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site