Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:52:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:51:49 -0400 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:12144 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:51:42 -0400 From: Kanoj Sarcar Message-Id: <200104041650.JAA95432@google.engr.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: a quest for a better scheduler To: andrea@suse.de (Andrea Arcangeli) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mingo@elte.hu (Ingo Molnar), frankeh@us.ibm.com (Hubertus Franke), mkravetz@sequent.com (Mike Kravetz), fabio@chromium.com (Fabio Riccardi), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux Kernel List), lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20010404170846.V20911@athlon.random> from "Andrea Arcangeli" at Apr 04, 2001 05:08:47 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > I didn't seen anything from Kanoj but I did something myself for the wildfire: > > ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.3aa1/10_numa-sched-1 > > this is mostly an userspace issue, not really intended as a kernel optimization > (however it's also partly a kernel optimization). Basically it splits the load > of the numa machine into per-node load, there can be unbalanced load across the > nodes but fairness is guaranteed inside each node. It's not extremely well > tested but benchmarks were ok and it is at least certainly stable. > Just a quick comment. Andrea, unless your machine has some hardware that imply pernode runqueues will help (nodelevel caches etc), I fail to understand how this is helping you ... here's a simple theory though. If your system is lightly loaded, your pernode queues are actually implementing some sort of affinity, making sure processes stick to cpus on nodes where they have allocated most of their memory on. I am not sure what the situation will be under huge loads though. As I have mentioned to some people before, percpu/pernode/percpuset/global runqueues probably all have their advantages and disadvantages, and their own sweet spots. Wouldn't it be really neat if a system administrator or performance expert could pick and choose what scheduler behavior he wants, based on how the system is going to be used? Kanoj - 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/