* Nick's scheduler v16
@ 2003-10-18 12:50 Nick Piggin
2003-10-18 13:18 ` Nick Piggin
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-10-18 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hi
http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/v16/
I'm starting to do some large SMP / NUMA testing. Fixed and changed quite
a bit. It isn't too bad, although I'm only testing dbench, tbench, and
volanomark at the moment.
These SMP and NUMA changes are not tied to my interactivity stuff, so its
possible they could get included if they turn out well. If you find any
problems with it (high end or interactivity), please let me know.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Nick's scheduler v16
2003-10-18 12:50 Nick's scheduler v16 Nick Piggin
@ 2003-10-18 13:18 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-21 21:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-10-30 3:41 ` Nick's scheduler v17a Nick Piggin
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-10-18 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hi
>
> http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/v16/
>
> I'm starting to do some large SMP / NUMA testing. Fixed and changed quite
> a bit. It isn't too bad, although I'm only testing dbench, tbench, and
> volanomark at the moment.
>
Oh, if anyone can suggest other benchmarks I could use it would be good
(I'm currently getting osdl's dbt2 set up). System is 16-way 16GB ia32
NUMA and very minimum disk bandwidth. Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Nick's scheduler v16
2003-10-18 12:50 Nick's scheduler v16 Nick Piggin
2003-10-18 13:18 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2003-10-21 21:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-10-22 1:43 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-30 3:41 ` Nick's scheduler v17a Nick Piggin
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-10-21 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin, linux-kernel; +Cc: ricklind
> I'm starting to do some large SMP / NUMA testing. Fixed and changed quite
> a bit. It isn't too bad, although I'm only testing dbench, tbench, and
> volanomark at the moment.
>
> These SMP and NUMA changes are not tied to my interactivity stuff, so its
> possible they could get included if they turn out well. If you find any
> problems with it (high end or interactivity), please let me know.
Interesting ... some things get getter, some worse:
Kernbench: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.6.0-test8 45.20 100.97 566.65 1476.25
2.6.0-test8-nick 44.81 93.98 568.49 1477.50
2.6.0-test8-nick2 44.78 94.69 568.81 1482.00
elapsed is a tiny bit faster, system is significantly less, but with
higher parallelism:
Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.6.0-test8 45.86 119.41 569.66 1502.00
2.6.0-test8-nick 47.00 112.75 590.40 1495.00
2.6.0-test8-nick2 47.11 112.86 590.31 1491.50
elapsed is definitely worse now.
SDET is a happy bunny though:
SDET 128 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.6.0-test8 100.0% 0.3%
2.6.0-test8-nick 109.9% 0.2%
Much of the changes there might just be backing out Con's interactivity
changes ...
M.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Nick's scheduler v16
2003-10-21 21:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2003-10-22 1:43 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-22 14:07 ` Nick's scheduler v16 - reaim Cliff White
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-10-22 1:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: linux-kernel, ricklind
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>I'm starting to do some large SMP / NUMA testing. Fixed and changed quite
>>a bit. It isn't too bad, although I'm only testing dbench, tbench, and
>>volanomark at the moment.
>>
>>These SMP and NUMA changes are not tied to my interactivity stuff, so its
>>possible they could get included if they turn out well. If you find any
>>problems with it (high end or interactivity), please let me know.
>>
>
>Interesting ... some things get getter, some worse:
>
>Kernbench: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus)
> Elapsed System User CPU
> 2.6.0-test8 45.20 100.97 566.65 1476.25
> 2.6.0-test8-nick 44.81 93.98 568.49 1477.50
> 2.6.0-test8-nick2 44.78 94.69 568.81 1482.00
>
>elapsed is a tiny bit faster, system is significantly less, but with
>higher parallelism:
>
>
>Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks)
> Elapsed System User CPU
> 2.6.0-test8 45.86 119.41 569.66 1502.00
> 2.6.0-test8-nick 47.00 112.75 590.40 1495.00
> 2.6.0-test8-nick2 47.11 112.86 590.31 1491.50
>
>elapsed is definitely worse now.
>
I'll see if I can reproduce this and work out what is going on.
Thanks Martin.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Nick's scheduler v16 - reaim
2003-10-22 1:43 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2003-10-22 14:07 ` Cliff White
2003-10-23 2:02 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Cliff White @ 2003-10-22 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin; +Cc: linux-kernel
>
>
>
> >>I'm starting to do some large SMP / NUMA testing. Fixed and changed quite
> >>a bit. It isn't too bad, although I'm only testing dbench, tbench, and
> >>volanomark at the moment.
> >>
> >>These SMP and NUMA changes are not tied to my interactivity stuff, so its
> >>possible they could get included if they turn out well. If you find any
> >>problems with it (high end or interactivity), please let me know.
> >>
Results from reaim aren't encouraging.
patch was applied against 2.6.0-test8 - the result
is PLM #2232
STP id kernal name Max JPM Max User Pct elevator
281932 nick_v16 4923.08 60 0.00 AS
281933 nick_v16 5196.06 68 5.54 deadline
281722 linux-2.6.0-test8 5432.77 92 9.38 deadline
281792 2.6.0-test8-mm1 5384.41 92 8.56 deadline
281790 2.6.0-test8-mm1 5392.65 88 8.7 AS
The kernel doesn't perform well at larger user numbers.
Notice the different in max users.
Compare the graphs for jobs per minute, the usual graph
is quite flat, see:
http://khack.osdl.org/stp/281932/results/jpm.png
With the v16 scheduler, jobs per minute falls off rapidly
as user number increases giving graph with a steep slope,
not good.
http://khack.osdl.org/stp/281790/results/jpm.png
Further results: http://www.developer.osdl.org/reaim/index.html
cliffw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Nick's scheduler v16 - reaim
2003-10-22 14:07 ` Nick's scheduler v16 - reaim Cliff White
@ 2003-10-23 2:02 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-10-23 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cliff White; +Cc: linux-kernel
Cliff White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I'm starting to do some large SMP / NUMA testing. Fixed and changed quite
>>>>a bit. It isn't too bad, although I'm only testing dbench, tbench, and
>>>>volanomark at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>These SMP and NUMA changes are not tied to my interactivity stuff, so its
>>>>possible they could get included if they turn out well. If you find any
>>>>problems with it (high end or interactivity), please let me know.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>Results from reaim aren't encouraging.
>patch was applied against 2.6.0-test8 - the result
>is PLM #2232
>
>STP id kernal name Max JPM Max User Pct elevator
>281932 nick_v16 4923.08 60 0.00 AS
>281933 nick_v16 5196.06 68 5.54 deadline
>281722 linux-2.6.0-test8 5432.77 92 9.38 deadline
>281792 2.6.0-test8-mm1 5384.41 92 8.56 deadline
>281790 2.6.0-test8-mm1 5392.65 88 8.7 AS
>
>The kernel doesn't perform well at larger user numbers.
>Notice the different in max users.
>Compare the graphs for jobs per minute, the usual graph
>is quite flat, see:
>http://khack.osdl.org/stp/281932/results/jpm.png
>
>With the v16 scheduler, jobs per minute falls off rapidly
>as user number increases giving graph with a steep slope,
>not good.
>http://khack.osdl.org/stp/281790/results/jpm.png
>Further results: http://www.developer.osdl.org/reaim/index.html
>
Hi Cliff,
Yeah, unfortunately this graph has been a feature of my scheduler for
quite a while :( I think it is caused either by too much balancing
or timeslices getting too small because there are a lot of threads
blocking. Anyway, if you had the time to test this one would be really
good.
http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/v16/sched-rollup-nopolicy-v16.gz
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Nick's scheduler v17a
2003-10-18 12:50 Nick's scheduler v16 Nick Piggin
2003-10-18 13:18 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-21 21:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2003-10-30 3:41 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-31 22:57 ` Rhino
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-10-30 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/v17a/
More balancing fixes. I also incorporated some of Andrew Theurer's
ideas. I'm generally getting good numbers now, but using fairly
synthetic benchmarks.
Now would be a good time to test if anyone is interested. Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Nick's scheduler v17a
2003-10-30 3:41 ` Nick's scheduler v17a Nick Piggin
@ 2003-10-31 22:57 ` Rhino
2003-11-03 4:47 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Rhino @ 2003-10-31 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin; +Cc: linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 625 bytes --]
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:41:07 +1100
Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
> http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/v17a/
>
> More balancing fixes. I also incorporated some of Andrew Theurer's
> ideas. I'm generally getting good numbers now, but using fairly
> synthetic benchmarks.
>
> Now would be a good time to test if anyone is interested. Thanks.
well i didn't have the time to make extensive tests yet, but the behaviour improved a lot since v16,
and *looks* quite better compared to test9 on a 2 way xeon p4 with hyperthreading enabled,
seeing 4 cpu's.
when i get back home, I'll try to make a few benchmarks.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Nick's scheduler v17a
2003-10-31 22:57 ` Rhino
@ 2003-11-03 4:47 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-11-03 4:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rhino, linux-kernel
Rhino wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:41:07 +1100
>Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/v17a/
>>
>>More balancing fixes. I also incorporated some of Andrew Theurer's
>>ideas. I'm generally getting good numbers now, but using fairly
>>synthetic benchmarks.
>>
>>Now would be a good time to test if anyone is interested. Thanks.
>>
>
>well i didn't have the time to make extensive tests yet, but the behaviour improved a lot since v16,
>and *looks* quite better compared to test9 on a 2 way xeon p4 with hyperthreading enabled,
>seeing 4 cpu's.
>
>when i get back home, I'll try to make a few benchmarks.
>
That would be nice. There still isn't a lot of work done in the HT
department, but something simple and easy like the shared runqueues
patch might be reasonable for 2.6.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-11-03 4:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-10-18 12:50 Nick's scheduler v16 Nick Piggin
2003-10-18 13:18 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-21 21:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-10-22 1:43 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-22 14:07 ` Nick's scheduler v16 - reaim Cliff White
2003-10-23 2:02 ` Nick Piggin
2003-10-30 3:41 ` Nick's scheduler v17a Nick Piggin
2003-10-31 22:57 ` Rhino
2003-11-03 4:47 ` Nick Piggin
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).