Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrew Theurer <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [patch] scheduler fix for 1cpu/node case | Date | Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:32:24 -0500 |
| |
> >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?
Yes, one cpu/node. Oh, it does prevent it, but with the current intervals, we end up not really balancing as often (since we need a inter-node balance), and when we call load_balance in schedule when idle, we don't balance at all since it's only a node local balance.
> > 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 > >another. > > I fully appreciate there are huge differences... I am curious if > you can see much improvements in practice.
I think AMD would be the first good test. Maybe Andi has some results on numasched vs O(1), which would be a good indication. - 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/
| |