public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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