Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262831AbUC3Gj7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 01:39:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262932AbUC3Gj7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 01:39:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:22439 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262831AbUC3Gjw (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 01:39:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:40:15 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: Nick Piggin , jun.nakajima@intel.com, ricklind@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, kernel@kolivas.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, anton@samba.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, mbligh@aracnet.com Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3 Message-ID: <20040330064015.GA19036@elte.hu> References: <20040325162121.5942df4f.ak@suse.de> <20040325193913.GA14024@elte.hu> <20040325203032.GA15663@elte.hu> <20040329084531.GB29458@wotan.suse.de> <4068066C.507@yahoo.com.au> <20040329080150.4b8fd8ef.ak@suse.de> <20040329114635.GA30093@elte.hu> <20040329221434.4602e062.ak@suse.de> <4068B692.9020307@yahoo.com.au> <20040330083450.368eafc6.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040330083450.368eafc6.ak@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.26.8-itk2 (ELTE 1.1) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.65 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1153 Lines: 34 * Andi Kleen wrote: > > So both -mm5 and Ingo's sched.patch are much worse than > > what 2.4 and 2.6 get? > > Yes (2.6 vanilla and 2.4-aa at that, i haven't tested 2.4-vanilla) > > Ingo's sched.patch makes it a bit better (from 1x CPU to 1.5-1.7xCPU), > but still much worse than the max of 3.7x-4x CPU bandwidth. Andi, could you please try the patch below - this will test whether this has to do with the rate of balancing between NUMA nodes. The patch itself is not correct (it way overbalances on NUMA), but it tests the theory. Ingo --- linux/include/linux/sched.h.orig +++ linux/include/linux/sched.h @@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ struct sched_domain { .parent = NULL, \ .groups = NULL, \ .min_interval = 8, \ - .max_interval = 256*fls(num_online_cpus()),\ + .max_interval = 8, \ .busy_factor = 8, \ .imbalance_pct = 125, \ .cache_hot_time = (10*1000000), \ - 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/