From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: 'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: 'Nick Piggin' <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:30:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200507291730.j6THUCg15426@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050729112616.GA24965@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <200507282308.j6SN8Tg01993@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
Ingo Molnar wrote on Friday, July 29, 2005 4:26 AM
> * Chen, Kenneth W <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> > To demonstrate the problem, we turned off these two flags in the cpu
> > sd domain and measured a stunning 2.15% performance gain! And
> > deleting all the code in the try_to_wake_up() pertain to load
> > balancing gives us another 0.2% gain.
>
> another thing: do you have a HT-capable ia64 CPU, and do you have
> CONFIG_SCHED_SMT turned on? If yes then could you try to turn off
> SD_WAKE_IDLE too, i found it to bring further performance improvements
> in certain workloads.
The scheduler experiments done so far are on non-SMT CPU (Madison processor).
We have another db setup with multi-thread capable ia64 cpu (montecito, and to
be precise, it is SOEMT capable). We are just about to do scheduler experiments
on that setup.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-29 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ 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 23:34 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-28 23:48 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 1:25 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 1:39 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 1:46 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 1:53 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 2:01 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 6:27 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 8:48 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 8:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 8:59 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 9:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 9:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 11:48 ` [patch] remove wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 14:13 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 15:02 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:21 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #3 Ingo Molnar
2005-07-30 0:08 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-30 7:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-31 1:15 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-01 17:13 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2005-08-08 23:18 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-30 23:26 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-31 4:35 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-31 6:29 ` Ingo Molnar
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 17:30 ` Chen, Kenneth W [this message]
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=200507291730.j6THUCg15426@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox