Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:24:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:24:45 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132]:50883 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:24:43 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA scheduler 1/2 From: Michael Hohnbaum To: Erich Focht Cc: linux-kernel , "Martin J. Bligh" , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Theurer In-Reply-To: <200210251937.53335.efocht@ess.nec.de> References: <200210111954.30447.efocht@ess.nec.de> <200210251937.53335.efocht@ess.nec.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 25 Oct 2002 17:29:18 -0700 Message-Id: <1035592159.9367.1696.camel@dyn9-47-17-164.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3451 Lines: 72 On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 10:37, Erich Focht wrote: > Here come the rediffed (for 2.5.44) patches for my version of the > NUMA scheduler extensions. I'm only sending the first two parts of > the complete set of 5 patches (which make the node affine NUMA scheduler > with dynamic homenode selection). The two patches lead to a pooling > NUMA scheduler with initial load balancing at exec(). > These patches produced a kernel that built and booted first try for me. Thanks. I ran kernbench and your numa_test (schedbench) on this numa scheduler (erich44), my simple numa scheduler (hbaum44), and a stock kernel (stock44). Kernbench: Elapsed User System CPU stock44 21.08s 196.80s 58.14s 1208.8% hbaum44 20.49s 192.57s 50.32s 1184.8% erich44 21.01s 193.47s 56.71s 1191.0% Schedbench 4: Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys AvgUser stock44 39.47 49.99 157.94 0.96 hbaum44 38.43 48.76 153.77 1.12 erich44 24.28 36.10 97.15 0.79 Schedbench 8: Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys AvgUser stock44 49.46 71.07 395.77 1.92 hbaum44 37.52 57.99 300.25 2.17 erich44 30.67 47.93 245.48 2.59 Schedbench 16: Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys AvgUser stock44 64.17 81.48 1026.94 6.41 hbaum44 52.23 73.23 835.81 5.18 erich44 52.25 61.20 836.12 4.69 Schedbench 32: Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys AvgUser stock44 72.45 165.86 2318.84 12.78 hbaum44 56.74 137.58 1816.17 8.81 erich44 55.98 121.19 1791.58 9.35 Schedbench 64: Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys AvgUser stock44 110.31 461.29 7060.60 26.02 hbaum44 58.30 255.90 3732.08 20.10 erich44 56.94 237.09 3644.95 21.26 The results seem fairly consistent with what we have been seeing all along. Erich's scheduler tends to be about the same as stock on kernbench, while mine is roughly 5% better. On schedbench Erich's does better on small loads, but as the load increases to one task per cpu it becomes a dead heat between the two. It is probably worth noting that my scheduler change is a bit smaller with 146 insertions, 27 deletions across 3 files, versus 432 insertions, 127 deletions across 4 files. But that should be expected, as my goal was to keep the changes as small as possible, while still providing measureable performance gains. -- Michael Hohnbaum 503-578-5486 hohnbaum@us.ibm.com T/L 775-5486 - 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/