From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>
Cc: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ia64 <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:29:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050731062927.GA472@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200507301929_MC3-1-A601-D4C2@compuserve.com>
* Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 at 17:02:07 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > do wakeup-balancing only if the wakeup-CPU is idle.
> >
> > this prevents excessive wakeup-balancing while the system is highly
> > loaded, but helps spread out the workload on partly idle systems.
>
> I tested this with Volanomark on dual-processor PII Xeon -- the
> results were very bad:
which patch have you tested? The mail you replied to above is for patch
#2, while on SMT/HT boxes it's patch #3 that is the correct approach.
furthermore, which base kernel have you applied the patch to? Best would
be to test the following kernels:
2.6.13-rc4 + sched-rollup
2.6.13-rc4 + sched-rollup + better-wake-balance-#3
the sched-rollup and the latest better-wake-balance patches can be found
at:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/scheduler-patches/
(sched-rollup is the current scheduler patch-queue in -mm. And if you
have time, it would also be nice to have a 2.6.13-rc4 baseline for
VolanoMark, and perhaps a 2.6.12 measurement too, so that we can see how
things changed.)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-31 6:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-30 23:26 [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-31 4:35 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-31 6:29 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-07-31 13:35 Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-29 2:01 Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 6:27 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 11:48 ` [patch] remove wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 14:13 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 15:02 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Ingo Molnar
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=20050731062927.GA472@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=76306.1226@compuserve.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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