From: Erich Focht <efocht@ess.nec.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>,
Michael Hohnbaum <hohnbaum@us.ibm.com>,
Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:11:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200301171911.29514.efocht@ess.nec.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200301171535.21226.efocht@ess.nec.de>
Ingo,
I repeated the tests with your B0 version and it's still not
satisfying. Maybe too aggressive NODE_REBALANCE_IDLE_TICK, maybe the
difference is that the other calls of load_balance() never have the
chance to balance across nodes.
Here are the results:
kernbench (average of 5 kernel compiles) (standard error in brackets)
---------
Elapsed UserTime SysTime
orig 134.43(1.79) 944.79(0.43) 21.41(0.28)
ingo 136.74(1.58) 951.55(0.73) 21.16(0.32)
ingofix 135.22(0.59) 952.17(0.78) 21.16(0.19)
ingoB0 134.69(0.51) 951.63(0.81) 21.12(0.15)
hackbench (chat benchmark alike) (elapsed time for N groups of 20
--------- senders & receivers, stats from 10 measurements)
N=10 N=25 N=50 N=100
orig 0.77(0.03) 1.91(0.06) 3.77(0.06) 7.78(0.21)
ingo 1.70(0.35) 3.11(0.47) 4.85(0.55) 8.80(0.98)
ingofix 1.16(0.14) 2.67(0.53) 5.05(0.26) 9.99(0.13)
ingoB0 0.84(0.03) 2.12(0.12) 4.20(0.22) 8.04(0.16)
numabench (N memory intensive tasks running in parallel, disturbed for
--------- a short time by a "hackbench 10" call)
numa_test N=4 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime
orig: 26.13(2.54) 86.10(4.47) 0.09(0.01)
ingo: 27.60(2.16) 88.06(4.58) 0.11(0.01)
ingofix: 25.51(3.05) 83.55(2.78) 0.10(0.01)
ingoB0: 27.58(0.08) 90.86(4.42) 0.09(0.01)
numa_test N=8 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime
orig: 24.81(2.71) 164.94(4.82) 0.17(0.01)
ingo: 27.38(3.01) 170.06(5.60) 0.30(0.03)
ingofix: 29.08(2.79) 172.10(4.48) 0.32(0.03)
ingoB0: 26.05(3.28) 171.61(7.76) 0.18(0.01)
numa_test N=16 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime
orig: 45.19(3.42) 332.07(5.89) 0.32(0.01)
ingo: 50.18(0.38) 359.46(9.31) 0.46(0.04)
ingofix: 50.30(0.42) 357.38(9.12) 0.46(0.01)
ingoB0: 50.96(1.33) 371.72(18.58) 0.34(0.01)
numa_test N=32 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime
orig: 86.84(1.83) 671.99(9.98) 0.65(0.02)
ingo: 93.44(2.13) 704.90(16.91) 0.82(0.06)
ingofix: 93.92(1.28) 727.58(9.26) 0.77(0.03)
ingoB0: 99.72(4.13) 759.03(29.41) 0.69(0.01)
The kernbench user time is still too large.
Hackbench improved a lot (understandeable, as idle CPUs steal earlier
from remote nodes).
Numa_test didn't improve, in average we have the same results.
Hmmm, now I really tend towards letting it the way it is in
2.5.59. Except the topology cleanup and renaming, of course. I have no
more time to test a more conservative setting of
IDLE_NODE_REBALANCE_TICK today, but that could help...
Regards,
Erich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-17 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-09 23:54 Minature NUMA scheduler Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-10 5:36 ` [Lse-tech] " Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-10 16:34 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-10 16:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-12 23:35 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-12 23:55 ` NUMA scheduler 2nd approach Erich Focht
2003-01-13 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-13 11:32 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-13 15:26 ` [Lse-tech] " Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-13 15:46 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-13 19:03 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 1:23 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 4:45 ` [Lse-tech] " Andrew Theurer
2003-01-14 4:56 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-14 11:14 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 15:55 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler Erich Focht
2003-01-14 16:07 ` [Lse-tech] " Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-14 16:23 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix Erich Focht
2003-01-14 16:43 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 19:02 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 21:56 ` [Lse-tech] " Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-15 15:10 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-16 0:14 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-16 6:05 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 16:47 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-16 18:07 ` Robert Love
2003-01-16 18:48 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 19:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 18:59 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 19:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-16 19:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 19:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 20:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 20:29 ` [Lse-tech] " Rick Lindsley
2003-01-16 23:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 7:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 8:47 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 14:35 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 15:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 15:30 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 16:58 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 20:54 ` NUMA sched -> pooling scheduler (inc HT) Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 21:34 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-19 0:13 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-17 18:19 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-18 7:08 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-18 8:12 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 8:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-19 4:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-17 17:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 17:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 18:11 ` Erich Focht [this message]
2003-01-17 19:04 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 19:26 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 0:13 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-18 13:31 ` [patch] tunable rebalance rates for sched-2.5.59-B0 Erich Focht
2003-01-18 23:09 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Erich Focht
2003-01-20 9:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 12:07 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 16:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 17:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 17:10 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 17:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 19:13 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-20 19:33 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 19:52 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-20 19:52 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 21:18 ` [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-D7 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-21 1:11 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-22 3:15 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-22 16:41 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-22 16:17 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-22 16:20 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-22 16:35 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-02-03 18:23 ` [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-E2 Ingo Molnar
2003-02-03 20:47 ` Robert Love
2003-02-04 9:31 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 17:04 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-21 17:44 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 16:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 23:09 ` Matthew Dobson
2003-01-16 23:45 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-17 11:10 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 14:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 19:44 ` John Bradford
2003-01-14 16:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-15 0:05 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-15 7:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-14 5:50 ` [Lse-tech] Re: NUMA scheduler 2nd approach Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 16:52 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-14 15:13 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 10:56 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-11 14:43 ` [Lse-tech] Minature NUMA scheduler Bill Davidsen
2003-01-12 23:24 ` Erich Focht
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200301171911.29514.efocht@ess.nec.de \
--to=efocht@ess.nec.de \
--cc=habanero@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hohnbaum@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).