Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263291AbUC3HHX (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:07:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263299AbUC3HHX (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:07:23 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:16268 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263291AbUC3HHU (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:07:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:07:16 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Ingo Molnar Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, 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: <20040330090716.67d2a493.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <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> <20040330064015.GA19036@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Length: 1076 Lines: 29 On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:40:15 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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. This works much better, but wildly varying (my tests go from 2.8xCPU to ~3.8x CPU for 4 CPUs. 2,3 CPU cases are ok). A bit more consistent results would be better though. -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/