From: Erich Focht <efocht@ess.nec.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
Michael Hohnbaum <hohnbaum@us.ibm.com>,
Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: NUMA scheduler 2nd approach
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:46:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200301131646.10634.efocht@ess.nec.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030113152642.A21994@infradead.org>
Hi Christoph,
I just finished some experiments which show that the finetuning can
really be left for later. So this approach is ok for me. I hope we can
get enough support for integrating this tiny numa scheduler.
I didn't do all possible measurements, the interesting ones are with
patches 1-4 (nb-smooth) and 1-5 (nb-sm-var1, nb-sm-var2) applied. They
show pretty consistent results (within error bars). The fine-tuning in
patch #5 doesn't buy us much right now (on my platform), so we can
leave it out.
Here's the data:
Results on a 8 CPU ia64 machine with 4 nodes (2 CPUs per node).
kernbench:
elapsed user system
stock52 134.52(0.84) 951.64(0.97) 20.72(0.22)
sched52 133.19(1.49) 944.24(0.50) 21.36(0.24)
minsched52 135.47(0.47) 937.61(0.20) 21.30(0.14)
nb-smooth 133.61(0.71) 944.71(0.35) 21.22(0.22)
nb-sm-var1 135.23(2.07) 943.78(0.54) 21.54(0.17)
nb-sm-var2 133.87(0.61) 944.18(0.62) 21.32(0.13)
schedbench/hackbench: time(s)
10 25 50 100
stock52 0.81(0.04) 2.06(0.07) 4.09(0.13) 7.89(0.25)
sched52 0.81(0.04) 2.03(0.07) 4.14(0.20) 8.61(0.35)
minsched52 1.28(0.05) 3.19(0.06) 6.59(0.13) 13.56(0.27)
nb-smooth 0.77(0.03) 1.94(0.04) 3.80(0.06) 7.97(0.35)
nb-sm-var1 0.81(0.05) 2.01(0.09) 3.89(0.21) 8.20(0.34)
nb-sm-var2 0.82(0.04) 2.10(0.09) 4.19(0.14) 8.15(0.24)
numabench/numa_test 4
AvgUserTime ElapsedTime TotUserTime TotSysTime
stock52 --- 27.23(0.52) 89.30(4.18) 0.09(0.01)
sched52 22.32(1.00) 27.39(0.42) 89.29(4.02) 0.10(0.01)
minsched52 20.01(0.01) 23.40(0.13) 80.05(0.02) 0.08(0.01)
nb-smooth 21.01(0.79) 24.70(2.75) 84.04(3.15) 0.09(0.01)
nb-sm-var1 21.39(0.83) 26.03(2.15) 85.56(3.31) 0.09(0.01)
nb-sm-var2 22.18(0.74) 27.36(0.42) 88.72(2.94) 0.09(0.01)
numabench/numa_test 8
AvgUserTime ElapsedTime TotUserTime TotSysTime
stock52 --- 27.50(2.58) 174.74(6.66) 0.18(0.01)
sched52 21.73(1.00) 33.70(1.82) 173.87(7.96) 0.18(0.01)
minsched52 20.31(0.00) 23.50(0.12) 162.47(0.04) 0.16(0.01)
nb-smooth 20.46(0.44) 24.21(1.95) 163.68(3.56) 0.16(0.01)
nb-sm-var1 20.45(0.44) 23.95(1.73) 163.62(3.49) 0.17(0.01)
nb-sm-var2 20.71(0.82) 23.78(2.42) 165.74(6.58) 0.17(0.01)
numabench/numa_test 16
AvgUserTime ElapsedTime TotUserTime TotSysTime
stock52 --- 52.68(1.51) 390.03(15.10) 0.34(0.01)
sched52 21.51(0.80) 47.18(3.24) 344.29(12.78) 0.36(0.01)
minsched52 20.50(0.03) 43.82(0.08) 328.05(0.45) 0.34(0.01)
nb-smooth 21.12(0.69) 47.42(4.02) 337.99(10.99) 0.34(0.01)
nb-sm-var1 21.18(0.77) 48.19(5.05) 338.94(12.38) 0.34(0.01)
nb-sm-var2 21.69(0.91) 49.05(4.36) 347.03(14.49) 0.34(0.01)
numabench/numa_test 32
AvgUserTime ElapsedTime TotUserTime TotSysTime
stock52 --- 102.60(3.89) 794.57(31.72) 0.65(0.01)
sched52 21.93(0.57) 92.46(1.10) 701.75(18.38) 0.67(0.02)
minsched52 20.64(0.10) 89.95(3.16) 660.72(3.13) 0.68(0.07)
nb-smooth 20.95(0.19) 86.63(1.74) 670.56(6.02) 0.66(0.02)
nb-sm-var1 21.47(0.54) 90.95(3.28) 687.12(17.42) 0.67(0.02)
nb-sm-var2 21.45(0.67) 89.91(3.80) 686.47(21.37) 0.68(0.02)
The kernels used:
- stock52 : 2.5.52 + ia64 patch
- sched52 : stock52 + old numa scheduler
- minisched52 : stock52 + miniature NUMA scheduler (cannot load
balance across nodes)
- nb-smooth : minisched52 + node balancer + smooth node load patch
- nb-sm-var1 : nb-smooth + variable internode_lb, (MIN,MAX) = (4,40)
- nb-sm-var2 : nb-smooth + variable internode_lb, (MIN,MAX) = (1,16)
Best regards,
Erich
On Monday 13 January 2003 16:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Anyone interested in this cleaned up minimal numa scheduler? This
> is basically Erich's patches 1-3 with my suggestions applied.
>
> This does not mean I don't like 4 & 5, but I'd rather get a small,
> non-intrusive patch into Linus' tree now and do the fine-tuning later.
>
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-13 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-09 23:54 Minature NUMA scheduler Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-10 5:36 ` [Lse-tech] " Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-10 16:34 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-10 16:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-12 23:35 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-12 23:55 ` NUMA scheduler 2nd approach Erich Focht
2003-01-13 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-13 11:32 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-13 15:26 ` [Lse-tech] " Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-13 15:46 ` Erich Focht [this message]
2003-01-13 19:03 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 1:23 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 4:45 ` [Lse-tech] " Andrew Theurer
2003-01-14 4:56 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-14 11:14 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 15:55 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler Erich Focht
2003-01-14 16:07 ` [Lse-tech] " Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-14 16:23 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix Erich Focht
2003-01-14 16:43 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 19:02 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 21:56 ` [Lse-tech] " Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-15 15:10 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-16 0:14 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-16 6:05 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 16:47 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-16 18:07 ` Robert Love
2003-01-16 18:48 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 19:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 18:59 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 19:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-16 19:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 19:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 20:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 20:29 ` [Lse-tech] " Rick Lindsley
2003-01-16 23:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 7:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 8:47 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 14:35 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 15:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 15:30 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 16:58 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 20:54 ` NUMA sched -> pooling scheduler (inc HT) Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 21:34 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-19 0:13 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-17 18:19 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-18 7:08 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-18 8:12 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 8:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-19 4:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-17 17:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 17:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 18:11 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 19:04 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 19:26 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 0:13 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-18 13:31 ` [patch] tunable rebalance rates for sched-2.5.59-B0 Erich Focht
2003-01-18 23:09 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Erich Focht
2003-01-20 9:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 12:07 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 16:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 17:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 17:10 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 17:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 19:13 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-20 19:33 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 19:52 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-20 19:52 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 21:18 ` [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-D7 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-21 1:11 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-22 3:15 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-22 16:41 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-22 16:17 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-22 16:20 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-22 16:35 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-02-03 18:23 ` [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-E2 Ingo Molnar
2003-02-03 20:47 ` Robert Love
2003-02-04 9:31 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 17:04 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-21 17:44 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 16:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 23:09 ` Matthew Dobson
2003-01-16 23:45 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-17 11:10 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 14:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 19:44 ` John Bradford
2003-01-14 16:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-15 0:05 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-15 7:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-14 5:50 ` [Lse-tech] Re: NUMA scheduler 2nd approach Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 16:52 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-14 15:13 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 10:56 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-11 14:43 ` [Lse-tech] Minature NUMA scheduler Bill Davidsen
2003-01-12 23:24 ` Erich Focht
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=200301131646.10634.efocht@ess.nec.de \
--to=efocht@ess.nec.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hohnbaum@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
/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