Message-ID: <408DC909.7030605@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:44:25 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040401 Debian/1.6-4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
CC: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: sched_domains and Stream benchmark
References: <1N7xQ-7fh-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <m3r7uitr1r.fsf@averell.firstfloor.org> <1083018633.3070.8.camel@farah> <20040427023327.GB11321@colin2.muc.de>
In-Reply-To: <20040427023327.GB11321@colin2.muc.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1023
Lines: 27

Andi Kleen wrote:
>>I noticed your binary ran with N=2000000 which is only sufficient for a
>>2 proc 1 MB cache opteron box according to the documentation on the
> 
> 
> It does not seem to make any difference. 
> 
> 
>>stream faq.  I also noticed wide variation in results (25% or so) when
>>running with 4 threads on a 4 proc opteron on linux-2.6.5-mm5.  Can you
>>provide me with the specs of the system you ran your tests on?
> 
> 
> Yes, mm5 is still broken because it has the "tuned to numasaurus" numa
> scheduler. Run it on a standard (non mm*) kernel or with Ingo's early 
> load balance patch.
> 

Now what is wrong with it? I thought you said it is OK
now that Ingo's balance-on-clone is implemented, and
that you also saw similar variation in results with
numasched?
-
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/