From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: davidm@hpl.hp.com
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: big bw_pipe drop due to sched-domain patch?
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 15:18:25 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40B81D21.3020907@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16568.6306.306924.154136@napali.hpl.hp.com>
David Mosberger wrote:
> Today I noticed that going from 2.6.6 to 2.6.7-rc1 caused a big drop
> in LMbench2 bw_pipe throughput on a dual-CPU machine (2.6.7-rc1 shows
> 10 times lower bandwidth than 2.6.6). It appears that the drop is due
> to the two tasks being distributed across the two CPUs, rather than
> being kept on the same CPU. If I force the tasks to be pinned on a
> single CPU, e.g., like so:
>
> $ taskset 1 ./bw_pipe
>
> then performance is "only" about 10% worse than with 2.6.6.
>
> Is this kind of drop expected?
>
(please CC Ingo for scheduler related stuff too)
Previously (ie. pre sched-domains), pipe based wakeups would
unconditionally migrate the "wakee" onto the same CPU as the waker.
Great for benchmarks, but possibly not really essential for real
workloads, especially when tasks start getting pulled across NUMA
nodes (I'd be happy to be shown otherwise though).
sched-domains introduces instead a "soft bias" that attempts to
get wakers and wakees together. The concept is applied to _all_
types of wakeups, not just pipe based.
I think this is a slightly better scheme, but we could increase
the aggressiveness of the bias if it is proven to be useful.
I don't know why your taskset performance is lower. taskset should
completely take the scheduler out of the equation AFAIKS...
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-29 5:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-29 4:59 big bw_pipe drop due to sched-domain patch? David Mosberger
2004-05-29 5:18 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
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=40B81D21.3020907@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.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