From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 02:33:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 02:33:30 -0500 Received: from spitfire.velocet.net ([216.138.223.227]:13573 "EHLO spitfire.velocet.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 02:33:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3E5B1EB8.2090601@alltec.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 02:43:52 -0500 From: Mike Sullivan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel Subject: Scheduling with Hyperthreading Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sorry, should have been more specific. I am referring to the scheduler. I have noticed that if I run two compute intensive jobs on a Dual Xeon, the processes run on separate physical cpus and can spend a significant amount of time with both on a single cpu. I have seen some patches that try to improve on this and was wondering if they have made it into the production kernel stream. I ran tests on a 2.4.20 kernel and it had the same problem as a 2.4.18 kernel. Thanks Mike William Lee Irwin III wrote: >On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Mike Sullivan wrote: > > >>>What kernel versions will attempt to distribute jobs across physical CPUs on >>>Xeon SMP configurations. >>> >>> > >On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:45:18PM -0700, James Bourne wrote: > > >>>From what I've heard, Arjans' user space daemon might be the way >>things are going, it's at http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/irqbalance/ . >>The other way that you might try is the irq load balance patch that Ingo >>produced. There is a patch that is from 2.4.20 at >>http://www.hardrock.org/kernel/2.4.20/ and it is what I'm using at work on >>our current Xeon systems (until I have the chance to test the user space >>daemon at least). >> >> > >I think he's referring to the cpu scheduler, not interrupt load >balancing. mingo might have some insight into current patches for >this and current results thereof. I don't really participate in >the scheduler aside from very occasional bugfixing. > > >-- wli > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Sullivan Director Performance Computing @lliance Technologies, Voice: (416) 385-3255, 18 Wynford Dr, Suite 407 Fax: (416) 385-1774 Toronto, ON, Canada, M3C-3S2 Toll Free:1-877-216-3199 http://www.alltec.com