From: Jie Chen <chen@jlab.org>
To: "Simon Holm Thøgersen" <odie@cs.aau.dk>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:58:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4744F042.4070002@jlab.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1195698770.11808.4.camel@odie.local>
Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> ons, 21 11 2007 kl. 20:52 -0500, skrev Jie Chen:
> There is a backport of the CFS scheduler to 2.6.21, see
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/19/127
>
Hi, Simon:
I will try that after the thanksgiving holiday to find out whether the
odd behavior will show up using 2.6.21 with back ported CFS.
>>>> Kernel 2.6.21
>>>> Number of Threads 2 4 6 8
>>>> SpinLock (Time micro second) 10.5618 10.58538 10.5915 10.643
>>>> (Overhead) 0.073 0.05746 0.102805 0.154563
>>>> Barrier (Time micro second) 11.020410 11.678125 11.9889 12.38002
>>>> (Overhead) 0.531660 1.1502 1.500112 1.891617
>>>>
>>>> Each thread is bound to a particular core using pthread_setaffinity_np.
>>>>
>>>> Kernel 2.6.23.8
>>>> Number of Threads 2 4 6 8
>>>> SpinLock (Time micro second) 14.849915 17.117603 14.4496 10.5990
>>>> (Overhead) 4.345417 6.617207 3.949435 0.110985
>>>> Barrier (Time micro second) 19.462255 20.285117 16.19395 12.37662
>>>> (Overhead) 8.957755 9.784722 5.699590 1.869518
>>>>
>
>
> Simon Holm Thøgersen
>
>
I just ran a simple test to prove that the problem may be related to
load balance of the scheduler. I first started 6 processes using
"taskset -c 2 donothing&; taskset -c 3 donothing&; ..., taskset -c 7
donothing". These 6 processes will run on core 2 to 7. Then I started my
test program using two threads bound to core 0 and 1. Here is the result:
Two threads on Kernel 2.6.23.8:
SpinLock (Time micro second) 10.558255
(Overhead) 0.068965
Barrier (Time micro second) 10.865520
(Overhead) 0.376230
Similarly, I started 4 donothing processes on core 4, 5, 6 and 7, and
ran the test program. I have the following result:
Four threads on Kernel 2.6.23.8:
SpinLock (Time micro second) 10.579413
(Overhead) 0.090023
Barrier (Time micro second) 11.363193
(Overhead) 0.873803
Finally, here is the result for 6 threads with two donothing processes
running on core 6 and 7:
Six threads on Kernel 2.6.23.8:
SpinLock (Time micro second) 10.590030
(Overhead) 0.100940
Barrier (Time micro second) 11.977548
(Overhead) 1.488458
Now the above results are very much similar to the results obtained for
the kernel 2.6.21. I hope this helps you guys in some ways. Thank you.
--
#############################################################################
# Jie Chen
# Scientific Computing Group
# Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
# Newport News, VA 23606
#
# chen@jlab.org
# (757)269-5046 (office)
# (757)269-6248 (fax)
#############################################################################
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-22 2:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-21 20:34 Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above Jie Chen
2007-11-21 22:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-11-22 1:52 ` Jie Chen
2007-11-22 2:32 ` Simon Holm Thøgersen
2007-11-22 2:58 ` Jie Chen [this message]
2007-11-22 20:19 ` Matt Mackall
2007-12-04 13:17 ` Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4 Ingo Molnar
2007-12-04 15:41 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 15:29 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 15:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 16:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-12-05 16:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 16:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-12-05 16:22 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 17:47 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 20:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 20:23 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 20:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 20:52 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 21:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 22:16 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-06 10:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-06 16:29 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-10 10:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-10 20:04 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 10:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 15:28 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 15:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 16:39 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 21:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 22:11 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-12 12:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-12-05 20:36 ` Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above Peter Zijlstra
2007-12-05 20:53 ` Jie Chen
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=4744F042.4070002@jlab.org \
--to=chen@jlab.org \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=odie@cs.aau.dk \
/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.