From: "John Hawkes" <hawkes@sgi.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: boot-time slowdown for measure_migration_cost
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:43:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <008901c625dd$d02e6760$6f00a8c0@comcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20060130185301.GA4622@agluck-lia64.sc.intel.com
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
...
> So the variation in the computed value of migration_cost was at worst
> 2% with these modifications to the algorithm. Do you really need to know
> the value to this accuracy? What 2nd order bad effects would occur from
> using an off-by-2% value for scheduling decisions?
>
> On the plus side Prarit's results show that this time isn't scaling with
> NR_CPUS ... apparently just cache size and number of domains are significant
> in the time to compute.
Yes, the calculation is done just once per domain level, and a desire to
achieve great accuracy for the calculation presupposes that the cpuM-to-cpuN
migration cost for a given domain level is identical (or very close) across
all the CPU pairs. That is, for a given domain level, only one CPU pair are
chosen for the calculation. For the ia64/sn2 NUMA Altix, and I suspect for
other NUMA platforms, this just isn't true for the middle domain level (i.e.,
the level that appears when the CPU count is >32p) -- i.e., some CPU pairs are
"closer" than other pairs. The variation for other CPU pairs in this domain
level is certainly much greater than 2%.
John Hawkes
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "John Hawkes" <hawkes@sgi.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: boot-time slowdown for measure_migration_cost
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:43:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <008901c625dd$d02e6760$6f00a8c0@comcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20060130185301.GA4622@agluck-lia64.sc.intel.com
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
...
> So the variation in the computed value of migration_cost was at worst
> 2% with these modifications to the algorithm. Do you really need to know
> the value to this accuracy? What 2nd order bad effects would occur from
> using an off-by-2% value for scheduling decisions?
>
> On the plus side Prarit's results show that this time isn't scaling with
> NR_CPUS ... apparently just cache size and number of domains are significant
> in the time to compute.
Yes, the calculation is done just once per domain level, and a desire to
achieve great accuracy for the calculation presupposes that the cpuM-to-cpuN
migration cost for a given domain level is identical (or very close) across
all the CPU pairs. That is, for a given domain level, only one CPU pair are
chosen for the calculation. For the ia64/sn2 NUMA Altix, and I suspect for
other NUMA platforms, this just isn't true for the middle domain level (i.e.,
the level that appears when the CPU count is >32p) -- i.e., some CPU pairs are
"closer" than other pairs. The variation for other CPU pairs in this domain
level is certainly much greater than 2%.
John Hawkes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-30 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-27 21:03 boot-time slowdown for measure_migration_cost Bjorn Helgaas
2006-01-27 21:03 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2006-01-27 21:48 ` Luck, Tony
2006-01-27 21:48 ` Luck, Tony
2006-01-27 22:08 ` Prarit Bhargava
2006-01-27 22:08 ` Prarit Bhargava
2006-01-30 17:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-01-30 17:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-01-30 18:53 ` Luck, Tony
2006-01-30 18:53 ` Luck, Tony
2006-01-30 19:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-01-30 19:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-01-30 20:00 ` Luck, Tony
2006-01-30 20:00 ` Luck, Tony
2006-01-30 20:43 ` Prarit Bhargava
2006-01-30 20:43 ` Prarit Bhargava
2006-01-30 20:52 ` Prarit Bhargava
2006-01-30 20:52 ` Prarit Bhargava
2006-01-30 20:43 ` John Hawkes [this message]
2006-01-30 20:43 ` John Hawkes
2006-01-30 19:26 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-01-30 19:26 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-02-01 0:50 ` Chuck Ebbert
2006-02-01 0:50 ` Chuck Ebbert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='008901c625dd$d02e6760$6f00a8c0@comcast.net' \
--to=hawkes@sgi.com \
--cc=bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.