Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261660AbUCKUVj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:21:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261634AbUCKUVj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:21:39 -0500 Received: from colin2.muc.de ([193.149.48.15]:32783 "HELO colin2.muc.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261673AbUCKUVh (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:21:37 -0500 Date: 11 Mar 2004 21:21:36 +0100 Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:21:36 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Andrew Morton Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.4-mm1 Message-ID: <20040311202136.GA59610@colin2.muc.de> References: <1ysXv-wm-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <20040311112852.4f56cf34.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040311112852.4f56cf34.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1831 Lines: 45 > > For SMT there is a patch from Intel pending that teaches x86-64 > > to set up the SMT scheduler. They said they got slightly better > > benchmark results. The SMT setup seems to be racy though. > > Am I correct in thinking that this patch provides the necessary hooks to > integrate x86_4 into the new functionality which sched-domains provides, or > is the Intel patch independent of sched-domains? It sets up the sched-domains code to know about HyperThreading CPUs on x86-64 too (basically same thing as the i386 code does with a few minor tweaks) So it's dependent on that. I will send it to you in separate mail. > > Some kind of SMT scheduler is definitely needed, we have a serious > > regression compared to 2.4 here right now. I'm not sure this > > is the right approach though, it seems to be far too complex. > > Well that's discouraging. I really do want to push this thing along a bit. > > Yours is the only report of regression of which I am aware. Is the reason > understood? I think the reason is that it doesn't do balance on clone/fork. The normal scheduler also doesn't do that, but for some reason it still does better on the benchmarks (but worse than the old 2.4 -aa/Intel O(1) HT scheduler) > And is anyone developing alternative SMT enhancements? I thought there was a patch from Ingo Molnar? ("shared runqueue") I must admit I never tried it, just remember seeing the patches. Also I've been playing with the entitlement scheduler to fix some of the interactivity problems I have on UP, but it also seems to still have problems. -Andi - 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/