Re: [rfc][patch] sched: remove smpnice

[Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>]

On Wednesday 08 February 2006 01:28, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I'd like to get some comments on removing smpnice for 2.6.16. I don't
> think the code is quite ready, which is why I asked for Peter's additions
> to also be merged before I acked it (although it turned out that it still
> isn't quite ready with his additions either).
>
> Basically I have had similar observations to Suresh in that it does not
> play nicely with the rest of the balancing infrastructure (and raised
> similar concerns in my review).
>
> The samples (group of 4) I got for "maximum recorded imbalance" on a 2x2
>
> SMP+HT Xeon are as follows:
>            | Following boot | hackbench 20        | hackbench 40
>
> -----------+----------------+---------------------+---------------------
> 2.6.16-rc2 | 30,37,100,112  | 5600,5530,6020,6090 | 6390,7090,8760,8470
> +nosmpnice |  3, 2,  4,  2  |   28, 150, 294, 132 |  348, 348, 294, 347
>
> Hackbench raw performance is down around 15% with smpnice (but that in
> itself isn't a huge deal because it is just a benchmark). However, the
> samples show that the imbalance passed into move_tasks is increased by
> about a factor of 10-30. I think this would also go some way to
> explaining latency blips turning up in the balancing code (though I
> haven't actually measured that).
>
> We'll probably have to revert this in the SUSE kernel.
>
> The other option for 2.6.16 would be to fast track Peter's stuff, which
> I could put some time into... but that seems a bit risky at this stage
> of the game.
>
> I'd like to hear any other suggestions though. Patch included to aid
> discussion at this stage, rather than to encourage any rash decisions.

I see the demonstrable imbalance but I was wondering if there is there a real 
world benchmark that is currently affected?

Cheers,
Con