Re: NUMA scheduler (was: 2.5 merge candidate list 1.5)

[Erich Focht <efocht@ess.nec.de>]

On Monday 28 October 2002 01:46, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>               2.5.44-mm4     Virgin
>       2.5.44-mm4-focht-1     Focht main
>       2.5.44-mm4-hbaum-1     Hbaum main
>      2.5.44-mm4-focht-12     Focht main + Focht balance_exec
>       2.5.44-mm4-hbaum-1     Hbaum main + Hbaum balance_exec
>         2.5.44-mm4-f1-h2     Focht main + Hbaum balance_exec
>
> Schedbench 4:
>                              Elapsed   TotalUser    TotalSys     AvgUser
>               2.5.44-mm4       32.45       49.47      129.86        0.82
>       2.5.44-mm4-focht-1       38.61       45.15      154.48        1.06
>       2.5.44-mm4-hbaum-1       37.81       46.44      151.26        0.78
>      2.5.44-mm4-focht-12       23.23       38.87       92.99        0.85
>      2.5.44-mm4-hbaum-12       22.26       34.70       89.09        0.70
>         2.5.44-mm4-f1-h2       21.39       35.97       85.57        0.81

One more remarks:
You seem to have made the numa_test shorter. That reduces it to beeing
simply a check for the initial load balancing as the hackbench running in
the background (and aimed to disturb the initial load balancing) might
start too late. You will most probably not see the impact of node affinity
with such short running tests. But we weren't talking about node affinity,
yet...

Erich