Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753025AbZAFOwO@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753025AbZAFOwO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:52:14 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751844AbZAFOv6
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:51:58 -0500
Received: from E23SMTP01.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.162]:44940 "EHLO
	e23smtp01.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751690AbZAFOv6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:51:58 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:24:45 +0530
From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
Message-ID: <20090106145445.GF4574@dirshya.in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20090102072600.GA13412@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <20090102221630.GF17240@elte.hu> <1230967765.5257.6.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090103101626.GA4301@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <1230981761.27180.10.camel@marge.simson.net> <1231081200.17224.44.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090104181946.GC4301@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <1231098769.5757.43.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090105032029.GE4301@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <1231130416.5479.8.camel@marge.simson.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1231130416.5479.8.camel@marge.simson.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2766
Lines: 80

* Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> [2009-01-05 05:40:16]:

> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 08:50 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: 
> > When CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG is enabled, the sched domain tree is dumped
> > (dmesg)
> 
> Oh, that.  I'm dense <thwack>
> 
> [    0.476050] CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
> [    0.476052]  domain 0: span 0-1 level MC
> [    0.476054]   groups: 0 1
> [    0.476057]   domain 1: span 0-3 level CPU
> [    0.476058]    groups: 0-1 2-3
> [    0.476062] CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
> [    0.476064]  domain 0: span 0-1 level MC
> [    0.476065]   groups: 1 0
> [    0.476067]   domain 1: span 0-3 level CPU
> [    0.476069]    groups: 0-1 2-3
> [    0.476072] CPU2 attaching sched-domain:
> [    0.476073]  domain 0: span 2-3 level MC
> [    0.476075]   groups: 2 3
> [    0.476077]   domain 1: span 0-3 level CPU
> [    0.476078]    groups: 2-3 0-1
> [    0.476081] CPU3 attaching sched-domain:
> [    0.476083]  domain 0: span 2-3 level MC
> [    0.476084]   groups: 3 2
> [    0.476086]   domain 1: span 0-3 level CPU
> [    0.476088]    groups: 2-3 0-1

Hi Mike,

This seems to be correct for the configuration.  Hope this would be
same for shced_mc=1 and sched_mc=2 since you would have hacked
mc_capable.

By default, all 4 cores will be 1 group at CPU at sched_mc={1,2} so
that packages are clearly identified in the CPU level sched groups.

 
> 2.6.26.8
> [    0.524043] CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
> [    0.524045]  domain 0: span 0-1
> [    0.524046]   groups: 0 1
> [    0.524049]   domain 1: span 0-3
> [    0.524051]    groups: 0-1 2-3
> [    0.524054] CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
> [    0.524055]  domain 0: span 0-1
> [    0.524056]   groups: 1 0
> [    0.524059]   domain 1: span 0-3
> [    0.524060]    groups: 0-1 2-3
> [    0.524063] CPU2 attaching sched-domain:
> [    0.524064]  domain 0: span 2-3
> [    0.524065]   groups: 2 3
> [    0.524068]   domain 1: span 0-3
> [    0.524069]    groups: 2-3 0-1
> [    0.524072] CPU3 attaching sched-domain:
> [    0.524073]  domain 0: span 2-3
> [    0.524075]   groups: 3 2
> [    0.524077]   domain 1: span 0-3
> [    0.524078]    groups: 2-3 0-1
> 
> > I was actually asking about software threads specified in the sysbench
> > benchmark.  Your have run almost 256 clients on a 4 core box, does
> > that mean sysbench had 256 worker threads?
> 
> Yes.

Let me try similar experiments on my dual socket quad core system.
I was limiting the threads to 8 assuming that the system will max-out
by then.

Thanks for the updates.

--Vaidy

--
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/