All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ck list <ck@vds.kolivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
	Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Staircase Deadline cpu scheduler version 0.45
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:06:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070422080607.GA15411@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200704221731.58724.kernel@kolivas.org>

On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the
> > > > staircase deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour dramatically
> > > > on any SMP machine.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to Willy Tarreau for noticing likely fault point.
> > > >
> > > > Also requested was a version in the Makefile so this version of the
> > > > patch adds -sd045 to the kernel version.
> > >
> > > Con, I'm sorry, but it is worse with this one :-(
> >
> > Well that was quick testing, thanks.
> >
> > > The lag when typing in xterms is even more noticeable and vmstat output
> > > oscillates between 8 and 65, with idle rates around 50%, as you can see
> > > below :
> > >
> > > Renicing X or not does not change anything here.
> > >
> > > I suspect that the bug you fixed was hiding another one :-/
> > > If you want me to test another patch, feel free to ask.
> 
> Just as a debug point could you please try this patch? Thanks.

OK, this time, the ocbench took ages to start. They appeared immediately
but very few of them (less than 8 out of 64) really started to work. The
system remained very responsive and smooth during the test. But I guess
I know why : all the load was sent to CPU 0 :

   procs                      memory      swap          io     system      cpu
 r  b  w   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in    cs us sy id
63  0  0      0 923476   6516  57456    0    0     0    28  175  1281 14 26 59
64  0  2      0 922976   6516  57456    0    0     0     0    4   261 19 31 50
64  0  0      0 922924   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    1    85 17 33 50
64  0  0      0 922924   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    0   110 25 25 50
64  0  1      0 922924   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    3    83 24 27 50
64  0  0      0 922924   6516  57492    0    0     0     4   16   267 18 33 50
64  0  0      0 922924   6516  57492    0    0     0     0   15   244 24 27 50
64  0  0      0 922956   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    8   200 20 31 49
59  0  0      0 922956   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    1    98 18 34 49
59  0  0      0 922956   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    0   105 21 30 49
64  0  0      0 922956   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    1    97 19 32 49
62  0  0      0 922972   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    0   114 23 28 49
64  0  0      0 922972   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    1    95 23 28 49
64  0  0      0 922972   6516  57492    0    0     0     0    0   104 22 29 49


CPU0 states:  45.0% user  54.0% system    0.0% nice   0.0% iowait   0.0% idle
CPU1 states:   0.1% user   0.0% system    0.0% nice   0.0% iowait  99.0% idle
Mem:  1034876k av,  112296k used,  922580k free,       0k shrd,    6524k buff
        34232k active,              45428k inactive
Swap:  497972k av,       0k used,  497972k free                   57536k cached

  PID USER     PRI  NI  SIZE  RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM   TIME CPU COMMAND
 1402 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     2.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1407 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     2.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1452 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     2.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1455 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     2.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1394 willy     29   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1395 willy     29   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1396 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1400 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1401 willy     29   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1404 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1408 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1409 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1411 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1412 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench
 1413 willy     31   0  2272  640   548 R     1.9  0.0   0:00   0 ocbench


Willy


  reply	other threads:[~2007-04-22  8:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-04-22  4:41 [ANNOUNCE] Staircase Deadline cpu scheduler version 0.45 Con Kolivas
2007-04-22  7:00 ` Willy Tarreau
2007-04-22  7:27   ` Con Kolivas
2007-04-22  7:31     ` Con Kolivas
2007-04-22  8:06       ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2007-04-22  8:53         ` Con Kolivas
2007-04-22  9:14           ` Willy Tarreau
2007-04-22  9:53             ` Con Kolivas
2007-04-22 11:42             ` Con Kolivas
2007-04-22 12:18               ` [ck] " Con Kolivas
2007-04-22 13:07                 ` Willy Tarreau
2007-04-22 13:27                   ` Con Kolivas
2007-04-22 14:22                 ` Willy Tarreau
2007-04-22 14:35                   ` Con Kolivas
2007-04-23  7:02                     ` Con Kolivas
2007-04-22 14:27                 ` Michael Gerdau
2007-04-22 14:37                   ` Con Kolivas
2007-04-22  8:02 ` [ck] " Michael Gerdau
2007-04-22 11:09   ` Con Kolivas

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=20070422080607.GA15411@1wt.eu \
    --to=w@1wt.eu \
    --cc=a1426z@gawab.com \
    --cc=billh@gnuppy.monkey.org \
    --cc=ck@vds.kolivas.org \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=gene.heskett@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
    --cc=wli@holomorphy.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.