From: "Prakash K. Cheemplavam" <prakashkc@gmx.de>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: spaminos-ker@yahoo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Subject: Re: Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:24:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4119F3D9.7040708@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cone.1092193795.772385.25569.502@pc.kolivas.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Con Kolivas wrote:
| I tried this on the latest staircase patch (7.I) and am not getting any
| output from your script when tested up to 60 threads on my hardware. Can
| you try this version of staircase please?
|
| There are 7.I patches against 2.6.8-rc4 and 2.6.8-rc4-mm1
|
| http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.8/
Hi,
I just updated to 2.6.8-rc4-ck2 and tried the two options interactive
and compute. Is the compute stuff functional? I tried setting it to 1
within X and after that X wasn't usable anymore (meaning it looked like
locked up, frozen/gone mouse cursor even). I managed to switch back to
console and set it to 0 and all was OK again.
The interactive to 0 setting helped me with runnign locally multiple
processes using mpi. Nevertheless (only with interactive 1 regression to
vanilla scheduler, else same) can't this be enhanced?
Details: I am working on a load balancing class using mpi. For testing
purpises I am running multiple processes on my machine. So for a given
problem I can say, it needs x time to solve. Using more processes opn a
single machine, this time (except communication and balancing overhead)
shouldn't be much larger. Unfortunately this happens. Eg. a given
probelm using two processes needs about 20 seconds to finish. But using
8 it already needs 47s (55s with interactiv set to 1). No, my balancing
framework is quite good. On a real (small, even larger till 128 nodes
tested) cluster overhead is just as low as 3% to 5%, ie. it scales quite
linearly.
Any idea how to tweak the staircase to get near the 20 seconds with more
processes? Or is this rather a problem of mpich used locally?
If you like I can send you my code to test (beware it is not that small).
Cheers,
Prakash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBGfPZxU2n/+9+t5gRApa1AJ9j82Aujwj/IoGLqvDsX29y/dLu/wCglvse
bRV6zeWc+6z+ETl9Hxqleho=
=Jay6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-11 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20040811010116.GL11200@holomorphy.com>
2004-08-11 2:21 ` Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others) spaminos-ker
2004-08-11 2:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-11 2:45 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 2:47 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 3:23 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 3:31 ` Con Kolivas
2004-08-11 3:46 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 3:44 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-13 0:13 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-13 1:44 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 3:09 ` Con Kolivas
2004-08-11 10:24 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam [this message]
2004-08-11 11:26 ` Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series Con Kolivas
2004-08-11 12:05 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-08-11 19:22 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-08-11 23:42 ` Con Kolivas
2004-08-12 8:08 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-08-12 18:18 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-08-12 2:04 ` Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others) spaminos-ker
2004-08-12 2:24 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-12 2:53 ` Con Kolivas
[not found] <411D50AE.5020005@bigpond.net.au>
2004-08-17 23:19 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-18 0:12 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-24 21:11 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-24 23:04 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-24 23:22 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-26 2:30 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-26 2:42 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-26 8:39 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-28 1:59 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-29 0:21 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-29 0:25 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-29 0:45 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-29 2:03 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-29 2:28 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-29 4:53 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-29 1:19 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-29 1:22 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-29 1:31 ` Peter Williams
2004-09-13 20:09 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-29 2:20 ` Lee Revell
[not found] <20040811093945.GA10667@elte.hu>
2004-08-17 23:08 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-07 21:53 spaminos-ker
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=4119F3D9.7040708@gmx.de \
--to=prakashkc@gmx.de \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=spaminos-ker@yahoo.com \
--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.