Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264547AbTIDDEM (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 23:04:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264549AbTIDDEL (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 23:04:11 -0400 Received: from mail-in-03.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.43]:45009 "EHLO mail-in-03.arcor-online.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264547AbTIDDEC (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 23:04:02 -0400 From: Daniel Phillips To: Steven Cole Subject: Re: Scaling noise Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 05:07:41 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: Antonio Vargas , Larry McVoy , CaT , Anton Blanchard , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030903040327.GA10257@work.bitmover.com> <200309040350.31949.phillips@arcor.de> <1062641965.3483.78.camel@spc> In-Reply-To: <1062641965.3483.78.camel@spc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309040507.41464.phillips@arcor.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3243 Lines: 63 On Thursday 04 September 2003 04:19, Steven Cole wrote: > On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 19:50, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > There was a time when SMP locking overhead actually cost something in the > > high single digits on Linux, on certain loads. Today, you'd have to work > > at it to find a real load where the 2.5/6 kernel spends more than 1% of > > its time in locking overhead, even on a large SMP machine (sample size of > > one: I asked Bill Irwin how his 32 node Numa cluster is running these > > days). This blows the ccCluster idea out of the water, sorry. The only > > way ccCluster gets to live is if SMP locking is pathetic and it's not. > > I would never call the SMP locking pathetic, but it could be improved. > Looking at Figure 6 (Star-CD, 1-64 processors on Altix) and Figure 7 > (Gaussian 1-32 processors on Altix) on page 13 of "Linux Scalability for > Large NUMA Systems", available for download here: > http://archive.linuxsymposium.org/ols2003/Proceedings/ > it appears that for those applications, the curves begin to flatten > rather alarmingly. This may have little to do with locking overhead. 2.4.17 is getting a little old, don't you think? This is the thing that changed most in 2.4 -> 2.6, and indeed, much of the work was in locking. > One possible benefit of using ccClusters would be to stay on that lower > part of the curve for the nodes, using perhaps 16 CPUs in a node. That > way, a 256 CPU (e.g. Altix 3000) system might perform better than if a > single kernel were to be used. I say might. It's likely that only > empirical data will tell the tale for sure. Right, and we do not see SGI contributing patches for partitioning their 256 CPU boxes. That's all the empirical data I need at this point. They surely do partition them, but not at the Linux OS level. > > As for Karim's work, it's a quintessentially flashy trick to make two UP > > kernels run on a dual processor. It's worth doing, but not because it > > blazes the way forward for ccClusters. It can be the basis for hot > > kernel swap: migrate all the processes to one of the two CPUs, load and > > start a new kernel on the other one, migrate all processes to it, and let > > the new kernel restart the first processor, which is now idle. > > Thank you for that very succinct summary of my rather long-winded > exposition on that subject which I posted here: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105214105131450&w=2 I swear I made the above up on the spot, just now :-) > Quite a bit of the complexity which I mentioned, if it were necessary at > all, could go into user space helper processes which get spawned for the > kernel going away, and before init for the on-coming kernel. Also, my > comment about not being able to shoe-horn two kernels in at once for > 32-bit arches may have been addressed by Ingo's 4G/4G split. I don't see what you're worried about, they are separate kernels and you get two instances of whatever split you want. Regards, Daniel - 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/