public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Hohnbaum <hohnbaum@us.ibm.com>
To: Erich Focht <efocht@ess.nec.de>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
	Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.53] NUMA scheduler (1/3)
Date: 03 Jan 2003 17:58:31 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1041645514.21653.29.camel@kenai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200212311429.04382.efocht@ess.nec.de>

On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 05:29, Erich Focht wrote:
> Here comes the minimal NUMA scheduler built on top of the O(1) load
> balancer rediffed for 2.5.53 with some changes in the core part. As
> suggested by Michael, I added the cputimes_stat patch, as it is
> absolutely needed for understanding the scheduler behavior.

Thanks for this latest patch.  I've managed to cobble together
a 4 node NUMAQ system (16 700 MHZ PIII procs, 16GB memory) and
ran kernbench and schedbench on this, along with the 2.5.50 and
2.5.52 versions.  Results remain fairly consistent with what
we have been obtaining on earlier versions.

Kernbench:
                        Elapsed       User     System        CPU
             sched50     29.96s   288.308s    83.606s    1240.8%
             sched52    29.836s   285.832s    84.464s    1240.4%
             sched53    29.364s   284.808s    83.174s    1252.6%
             stock50    31.074s   303.664s    89.194s    1264.2%
             stock53    31.204s   306.224s    87.776s    1263.2%

Schedbench 4:
                        AvgUser    Elapsed  TotalUser   TotalSys
             sched50      22.00      35.50      88.04       0.86
             sched52      22.04      34.77      88.18       0.75
             sched53      22.16      34.39      88.66       0.74
             stock50      27.18      45.99     108.75       0.87
             stock53       0.00      41.96     133.85       1.07

Schedbench 8:
                        AvgUser    Elapsed  TotalUser   TotalSys
             sched50      32.05      46.81     256.45       1.81
             sched52      32.75      50.33     262.07       1.63
             sched53      30.56      46.58     244.59       1.67
             stock50      44.75      63.68     358.09       2.55
             stock53       0.00      59.64     318.63       2.40

Schedbench 16:
                        AvgUser    Elapsed  TotalUser   TotalSys
             sched50      55.34      70.74     885.61       4.09
             sched52      50.64      62.30     810.50       4.31
             sched53      54.04      70.01     864.84       3.68
             stock50      65.36      80.72    1045.94       5.92
             stock53       0.00      78.01     947.06       6.70

Schedbench 32:
                        AvgUser    Elapsed  TotalUser   TotalSys
             sched50      59.47     139.77    1903.37      10.24
             sched52      58.37     132.90    1868.30       7.45
             sched53      57.35     132.30    1835.49       9.29
             stock50      84.51     194.89    2704.83      12.44
             stock53       0.00     182.95    2612.83      12.46

Schedbench 64:
                        AvgUser    Elapsed  TotalUser   TotalSys
             sched50      63.55     276.81    4067.65      21.58
             sched52      66.75     293.31    4272.72      21.06
             sched53      62.38     276.99    3992.97      19.90
             stock50      99.68     422.06    6380.04      25.92
             stock53       0.00     441.42    6723.01      26.83

Note that the 0.00 in the AvgUser column for stock53 was due to
me not applying the cputime patch (03--cputimes_stat-2.5.53.patch).
Not sure how I managed to forget that one.  I'll rerun this on
a kernel with that patch on Monday.

-- 
Michael Hohnbaum            503-578-5486
hohnbaum@us.ibm.com         T/L 775-5486


  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-01-04  1:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-11-06 16:34 NUMA scheduler BK tree Erich Focht
2002-11-06 18:10 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2002-11-07 23:05   ` Erich Focht
2002-11-07 23:46 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2002-11-08 16:57   ` Erich Focht
2002-11-11 15:13 ` [PATCH 2.5.47] NUMA scheduler (1/2) Erich Focht
2002-11-11 15:14   ` [PATCH 2.5.47] NUMA scheduler (2/2) Erich Focht
2002-11-12  0:24   ` [PATCH 2.5.47] NUMA scheduler (1/2) Michael Hohnbaum
2002-11-18 19:40 ` NUMA scheduler BK tree Martin J. Bligh
2002-11-19 16:26   ` [PATCH 2.5.48] NUMA scheduler (1/2) Erich Focht
2002-11-19 16:27     ` [PATCH 2.5.48] NUMA scheduler (2/2) Erich Focht
2002-12-02 15:29     ` [PATCH 2.5.50] NUMA scheduler (1/2) Erich Focht
2002-12-02 15:30       ` [PATCH 2.5.50] NUMA scheduler (2/2) Erich Focht
2002-12-06 17:39       ` [PATCH 2.5.50] NUMA scheduler (1/2) Michael Hohnbaum
2002-12-18 16:21       ` [PATCH 2.5.52] " Erich Focht
2002-12-18 16:23         ` [PATCH 2.5.52] NUMA scheduler (2/2) Erich Focht
2002-12-20 14:49         ` [PATCH 2.5.52] NUMA scheduler: cputimes stats Erich Focht
2002-12-20 15:17         ` [PATCH 2.5.52] NUMA scheduler (1/2) Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-20 17:44           ` Erich Focht
2002-12-31 13:29         ` [PATCH 2.5.53] NUMA scheduler (1/3) Erich Focht
2002-12-31 13:29           ` [PATCH 2.5.53] NUMA scheduler (2/3) Erich Focht
2002-12-31 13:30           ` [PATCH 2.5.53] NUMA scheduler (3/3) Erich Focht
2003-01-04  1:58           ` Michael Hohnbaum [this message]
2003-01-05  5:35             ` [PATCH 2.5.53] NUMA scheduler (1/3) Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-06  3:58               ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-06  6:07                 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-07  2:23                   ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-07 11:27                     ` Erich Focht
2003-01-07 23:35                       ` Michael Hohnbaum

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=1041645514.21653.29.camel@kenai \
    --to=hohnbaum@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=efocht@ess.nec.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rml@tech9.net \
    --cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
    /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