From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: 'Nick Piggin' <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:48:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200507282348.j6SNmLg02429@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42E96B8C.6010005@yahoo.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <200507282308.j6SN8Tg01993@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:35 PM
> Wake balancing provides an opportunity to provide some input bias
> into the load balancer.
>
> For example, if you started 100 pairs of tasks which communicate
> through a pipe. On a 2 CPU system without wake balancing, probably
> half of the pairs will be on different CPUs. With wake balancing,
> it should be much better.
Shouldn't the pipe code use synchronous wakeup?
> I hear you might be having problems with recent 2.6.13 kernels? If so,
> it would be really good to have a look that before 2.6.13 goes out the
> door.
Yes I do :-(, apparently bumping up cache_hot_time won't give us the
performance boost we used to see.
- Ken
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Nick Piggin'" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:48:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200507282348.j6SNmLg02429@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42E96B8C.6010005@yahoo.com.au>
Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:35 PM
> Wake balancing provides an opportunity to provide some input bias
> into the load balancer.
>
> For example, if you started 100 pairs of tasks which communicate
> through a pipe. On a 2 CPU system without wake balancing, probably
> half of the pairs will be on different CPUs. With wake balancing,
> it should be much better.
Shouldn't the pipe code use synchronous wakeup?
> I hear you might be having problems with recent 2.6.13 kernels? If so,
> it would be really good to have a look that before 2.6.13 goes out the
> door.
Yes I do :-(, apparently bumping up cache_hot_time won't give us the
performance boost we used to see.
- Ken
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-28 23:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-28 23:08 Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-28 23:08 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-28 23:34 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-28 23:34 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-28 23:48 ` Chen, Kenneth W [this message]
2005-07-28 23:48 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 1:25 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 1:25 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 1:39 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 1:39 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 1:46 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 1:46 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 1:53 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 1:53 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 2:01 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 2:01 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 6:27 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 6:27 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 8:48 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 8:48 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 8:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 8:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 8:59 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 8:59 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 9:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 9:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 9:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 9:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 11:48 ` [patch] remove wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 11:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 14:13 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 14:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 15:02 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 15:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:21 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #3 Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-30 0:08 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-30 0:08 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-30 7:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-30 7:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-31 1:15 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-31 1:15 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-01 17:13 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2005-08-01 17:13 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2005-08-08 23:18 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-08-08 23:18 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-30 23:26 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-30 23:26 ` Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-31 4:35 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-31 4:35 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-31 6:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-31 6:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-31 13:35 ` Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-31 13:35 ` Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-29 11:26 ` Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 11:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 17:30 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 17:30 ` Chen, Kenneth W
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=200507282348.j6SNmLg02429@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--to=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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.