Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:45:24 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] NUMA scheduling |
| |
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:55:03AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > > > - The load_balancing() concept is different: > > > > - there are no special time intervals for balancing across pool > > > > boundaries, the need for this can occur very quickly and I > > > > have the feeling that 2*250ms is a long time for keeping the > > > > nodes unbalanced. This means: each time load_balance() is called > > > > it _can_ balance across pool boundaries (but doesn't have to). > > > > > > Imagine for a moment that there's a short spike in workload on one node. > > > By agressively balancing across nodes, won't you incur a high cost > > > in terms of migrating all the cache data to the remote node (destroying > > > the cache on both the remote and local node), when it would be cheaper > > > to wait for a few more ms, and run on the local node? > > > > Great question! The answer is that you are absolutely right. SGI tried > > a pile of things in this area, both on NUMA and on traditional SMPs (the > > NUMA stuff was more page migration and the SMP stuff was more process > > migration, but the problems are the same, you screw up the cache). They > > never got the page migration to give them better performance while I was > > there and I doubt they have today. And the process "migration" from CPU > > to CPU didn't work either, people tended to lock processes to processors > > for exactly the reason you alluded to. > > > > If you read the early hardware papers on SMP, they all claim "Symmetric > > Multi Processor", i.e., you can run any process on any CPU. Skip forward > > 3 years, now read the cache affinity papers from the same hardware people. > > You have to step back and squint but what you'll see is that these papers > > could be summarized on one sentence: > > > > "Oops, we lied, it's not really symmetric at all" > > > > You should treat each CPU as a mini system and think of a process reschedule > > someplace else as a checkpoint/restart and assume that is heavy weight. In > > fact, I'd love to see the scheduler code forcibly sleep the process for > > 500 milliseconds each time it lands on a different CPU. Tune the system > > to work well with that, then take out the sleep, and you'll have the right > > answer. > > I made this test on 8 way NUMA machines ( thx to OSDLAB ). When a CPUs
s/NUMA/SMP/
- Davide
- 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/
| |