From: "John Hawkes" <hawkes@sgi.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: boot-time slowdown for measure_migration_cost
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:43:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <008901c625dd$d02e6760$6f00a8c0@comcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20060130185301.GA4622@agluck-lia64.sc.intel.com
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
...
> So the variation in the computed value of migration_cost was at worst
> 2% with these modifications to the algorithm. Do you really need to know
> the value to this accuracy? What 2nd order bad effects would occur from
> using an off-by-2% value for scheduling decisions?
>
> On the plus side Prarit's results show that this time isn't scaling with
> NR_CPUS ... apparently just cache size and number of domains are significant
> in the time to compute.
Yes, the calculation is done just once per domain level, and a desire to
achieve great accuracy for the calculation presupposes that the cpuM-to-cpuN
migration cost for a given domain level is identical (or very close) across
all the CPU pairs. That is, for a given domain level, only one CPU pair are
chosen for the calculation. For the ia64/sn2 NUMA Altix, and I suspect for
other NUMA platforms, this just isn't true for the middle domain level (i.e.,
the level that appears when the CPU count is >32p) -- i.e., some CPU pairs are
"closer" than other pairs. The variation for other CPU pairs in this domain
level is certainly much greater than 2%.
John Hawkes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-30 20:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-27 21:03 boot-time slowdown for measure_migration_cost Bjorn Helgaas
2006-01-30 17:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-01-30 18:53 ` Luck, Tony
2006-01-30 19:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-01-30 20:00 ` Luck, Tony
2006-01-30 20:43 ` Prarit Bhargava
2006-01-30 20:52 ` Prarit Bhargava
2006-01-30 20:43 ` John Hawkes [this message]
2006-01-30 19:26 ` Chen, Kenneth W
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-27 21:48 Luck, Tony
2006-01-27 22:08 ` Prarit Bhargava
2006-02-01 0:50 Chuck Ebbert
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='008901c625dd$d02e6760$6f00a8c0@comcast.net' \
--to=hawkes@sgi.com \
--cc=bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox