Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261472AbVDDGYk (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2005 02:24:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261561AbVDDGYk (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2005 02:24:40 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:4061 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261472AbVDDGYh (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2005 02:24:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 08:24:14 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Chen, Kenneth W" Cc: Paul Jackson , torvalds@osdl.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels] Message-ID: <20050404062414.GA22664@elte.hu> References: <20050403142959.GB22798@elte.hu> <200504040131.j341Vlg31981@unix-os.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200504040131.j341Vlg31981@unix-os.sc.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 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: 2076 Lines: 45 * Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote on Sunday, April 03, 2005 7:30 AM > > how close are these numbers to the real worst-case migration costs on > > that box? > > I booted your latest patch on a 4-way SMP box (1.5 GHz, 9MB ia64). This > is what it produces. I think the estimate is excellent. > > [00]: - 10.4(0) 10.4(0) 10.4(0) > [01]: 10.4(0) - 10.4(0) 10.4(0) > [02]: 10.4(0) 10.4(0) - 10.4(0) > [03]: 10.4(0) 10.4(0) 10.4(0) - > --------------------- > cacheflush times [1]: 10.4 (10448800) great! How long does the benchmark take (hours?), and is there any way to speed up the benchmarking (without hurting accuracy), so that multiple migration-cost settings could be tried? Would it be possible to try a few other values via the migration_factor boot option, in 0.5 msec steps or so, to find the current sweet spot? It used to be at 11 msec previously, correct? E.g. migration_factor=105 will change the cost to 10.9 msec, migration_factor=110 will change it to 11.4, etc. Or with the latest snapshot you can set absolute values as well, migration_cost=11500 sets the cost to 11.5 msec. > One other minor thing: when booting a numa kernel on smp box, there is > a numa scheduler domain at the top level and cache_hot_time will be > set to 0 in that case on smp box. Though this will be a mutt point > with recent patch from Suresh Siddha for removing the extra bogus > scheduler domains. > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111240208000001&r=1&w=2 at first sight the dummy domain should not be a problem, the ->cache_hot values are only used when deciding whether a task should migrate to a parallel domain or not - if there's an extra highlevel domain instance then such decisions are never made, so a zero value makes no difference. Ingo - 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/