lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Scheduler(?) regression from 2.6.22 to 2.6.24 for short-lived threads
Olof Johansson wrote:

>> However, I fail to understand the goal of the reproducer. Granted it shows
>> irregularities in the scheduler under such conditions, but what *real*
>> workload would spend its time sequentially creating then immediately killing
>> threads, never using more than 2 at a time ?
>>
>> If this could be turned into a DoS, I could understand, but here it looks
>> a bit pointless :-/
>
> It seems generally unfortunate that it takes longer for a new thread to
> move over to the second cpu even when the first is busy with the original
> thread. I can certainly see cases where this causes suboptimal overall
> system behaviour.
>
I think the moving to another CPU gets really dependent on the CPU type.
On a P4+HT the caches are shared, and moving costs almost nothing for
cache hits, while on CPUs which have other cache layouts the migration
cost is higher. Obviously multi-core should be cheaper than
multi-socket, by avoiding using the system memory bus, but it still can
get ugly.

I have an IPC test around which showed that, it ran like hell on HT, and
progressively worse as cache because less shared. I wonder why the
latest git works so much better?

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-11 22:47    [W:0.097 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site