From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: mingo@kernel.org, pjt@google.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com,
suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, efault@gmx.de
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] various sched and numa bits
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 20:14:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120501181430.007891123@chello.nl> (raw)
Hi,
The first two patches change how the load-balancer traverses the sched_domain
tree. Currently we go one level up on the first non-idle cpu, change that to
be the least loaded cpu. The second adds a little serialization to the
sched_domain traversal, so that no two cpus of the same group go up.
Paul, can you run these through linsched to see if they make anything worse?
They make conceptual sense, but that never says much these days :/
The following two patches extend NUMA emulation and were used to test the last
patch.
The last patch does a complete re-implementation of CONFIG_NUMA support for
the scheduler and should get us a topology that matches the NUMA interconnects
as opposed to the semi-random stuff we have now. The code assumes a number of
things which I hope are true, but lacking any interesting hardware what do I
know... Its tested by using the node_distance() table from an quad-socket AMD
Magny-Cours, which is a non-fully-connected system -- see 3/5.
next reply other threads:[~2012-05-01 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-01 18:14 Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2012-05-01 18:14 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched, fair: Let minimally loaded cpu balance the group Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-02 10:25 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-05-02 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-02 10:34 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-05-04 0:05 ` Suresh Siddha
2012-05-04 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-01 18:14 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] sched, fair: Add some serialization to the sched_domain load-balance walk Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-01 18:14 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] x86: Allow specifying node_distance() for numa=fake Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-01 18:14 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] x86: Hard partition cpu topology masks on node boundaries Peter Zijlstra
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=20120501181430.007891123@chello.nl \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
/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