[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: [patch] scheduler fix for 1cpu/node case

Andrew Theurer wrote:

>On Friday 22 August 2003 17:56, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>>On Wednesday 13 August 2003 15:49, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>>>>Personally, I'd like to see all systems use NUMA sched, non NUMA systems
>>>>>being a single node (no policy difference from non-numa sched), allowing
>>>>>us to remove all NUMA ifdefs. I think the code would be much more
>>>>That sounds like a great idea, but I'm not sure it could be realized
>>>>short of a major rewrite. Look how hard Ingo and Con are working just to
>>>>get a single node doing a good job with interactive and throughput
>>>Actually it's not too bad. Attached is a patch to do it. It also does
>>>multi-level node support and makes all the load balance routines
>>>runqueue-centric instead of cpu-centric, so adding something like shared
>>>runqueues (for HT) should be really easy. Hmm, other things: inter-node
>>>balance intervals are now arch specific (AMD is "1"). The default
>>>busy/idle balance timers of 200/1 are not arch specific, but I'm thinking
>>>they should be. And for non-numa, the scheduling policy is the same as
>>>it was with vanilla O(1).
>>I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have some numbers where this
>>helps? ie. two architectures that need very different balance numbers.
>>And what is the reason for making AMD's balance interval 1?
>AMD is 1 because there's no need to balance within a node, so I want the
>inter-node balance frequency to be as often as it was with just O(1). This
>interval would not work well with other NUMA boxes, so that's the main reason
>to have arch specific intervals.

OK, I misread the patch. IIRC AMD has 1 CPU per node? If so, why doesn't
this simply prevent balancing within a node?

> And, as a general guideline, boxes with
>different local-remote latency ratios will probably benefit from different
>inter-node balance intervals. I don't know what these ratios are, but I'd
>like the kernel to have the ability to change for one arch and not affect

I fully appreciate there are huge differences... I am curious if
you can see much improvements in practice.

>>Also, things like nr_running_inc are supposed to be very fast. I am
>>a bit worried to see a loop and CPU shared atomics in there.
>That has concerned me, too. So far I haven't been able to see a measurable
>difference either way (within noise level), but it's possible. The other
>alternative is to sum up node load at sched_best_cpu and find_busiest_node.

Hmm... get someone to try the scheduler benchmarks on a 32 way box ;)

>>node_2_node is an odd sounding conversion too ;)
>I just went off the toplogy already there, so I left it.
>>BTW. you should be CC'ing Ingo if you have any intention of scheduler
>>stuff getting into 2.6.
>OK, thanks!

Good luck with it. Definitely some good ideas.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.103 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site