Messages in this thread | | | From | Erich Focht <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] pooling NUMA scheduler with initial load balancing | Date | Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:27:59 +0200 |
| |
On Friday 11 October 2002 09:47, Erich Focht wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Thursday 10 October 2002 19:34, Andrew Theurer wrote: > > Thanks very much Erich. I did come across another problem here on > > numa-q. In task_to_steal() there is a divide by cache_decay_ticks, which > > apparantly is 0 on my system. This may have to do with notsc, but I am > > not sure. I set cache_decay_ticks to 8, (I cannot boot without using > > notsc) which is probably not correct, but I can now boot 16 processor > > numa-q on 2.5.40-mm1 with your patches! I'll get some benchmark results > > soon. > > oops... This is a bug in 2.5-i386. It means that the O(1) scheduler in > 2.5 doesn't work well either because it doesn't take into account cache > coolness. I'll post a fix to LKML in a few minutes.
Sorry, I thought the smp_tune_scheduling() call went lost during the transition to the new cpu boot scheme. But it's there. And the problem is indeed "notsc". So you'll have to fix it, I can't.
If you set the cache_decay_ticks to something non-zero, you should _really_ do this for all the scheduler tests, otherwise your measurements will not be comparable.
Regards, Erich
- 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/
| |