Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263529AbUCYTZm (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:25:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263571AbUCYTZm (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:25:42 -0500 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]:957 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263529AbUCYTZk (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:25:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:24:44 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen cc: "Nakajima, Jun" , Rick Lindsley , piggin@cyberone.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, kernel@kolivas.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, anton@samba.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3 Message-ID: <10030000.1080242684@flay> In-Reply-To: <20040325190944.GB12383@elte.hu> References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D372001730111990F@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com> <20040325154011.GB30175@wotan.suse.de> <20040325190944.GB12383@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1343 Lines: 30 >> It doesn't do load balance in wake_up_forked_process() and is >> relatively non aggressive in balancing later. This leads to the >> multithreaded OpenMP STREAM running its childs first on the same node >> as the original process and allocating memory there. [...] > > i believe the fix we want is to pre-balance the context at fork() time. > I've implemented this (which is basically just a reuse of > sched_balance_exec() in fork.c, and the related namespace cleanups), > could you give it a go: > > http://redhat.com/~mingo/scheduler-patches/sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A5 > > another solution would be to add SD_BALANCE_FORK. > > also, the best place to do fork() blancing is not at > wake_up_forked_process() time, but prior doing the MM copy. This patch > does it there. At wakeup time we've already copied all the pagetables > and created tons of dirty cachelines. How are you going to decide whether to rebalance at fork time or exec time? Exec time balancing is a *lot* more efficient, it just doesn't work for things that don't exec ... cloned threads would certainly be one case. M. - 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/