Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263574AbUC3Jgt (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:36:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263578AbUC3Jgt (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:36:49 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:3470 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263574AbUC3Jg0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:36:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:36:18 +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: <20040330113618.42869473.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20040330081840.GA22733@elte.hu> References: <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> <20040330090716.67d2a493.ak@suse.de> <20040330071519.GA20227@elte.hu> <20040330094811.622af0f4.ak@suse.de> <20040330081840.GA22733@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: 1080 Lines: 32 On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:18:40 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > ok, could you try min_interval,max_interval and busy_factor all with a > > > value as 4, in sched.h's SD_NODE_INIT template? (again, only for testing > > > purposes.) > > > > I kept the old patch and made these changes. The results are much more > > consistent now 3+x CPU. I still get varyations of ~2GB/s, but I had > > this with older kernels too. > > great. > > now, could you try the following patch, against vanilla -mm5: > > redhat.com/~mingo/scheduler-patches/sched2.patch > > this includes 'context balancing' and doesnt touch the NUMA async > balancing tunables. Do you get better performance than with stock -mm5? I get better performance (roughly 2.1x CPU), but only about half the optimum. -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/