From: "Prakash K. Cheemplavam" <prakashkc@gmx.de>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: spaminos-ker@yahoo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Subject: Re: Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:24:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4119F3D9.7040708@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cone.1092193795.772385.25569.502@pc.kolivas.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Con Kolivas wrote:
| I tried this on the latest staircase patch (7.I) and am not getting any
| output from your script when tested up to 60 threads on my hardware. Can
| you try this version of staircase please?
|
| There are 7.I patches against 2.6.8-rc4 and 2.6.8-rc4-mm1
|
| http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.8/
Hi,
I just updated to 2.6.8-rc4-ck2 and tried the two options interactive
and compute. Is the compute stuff functional? I tried setting it to 1
within X and after that X wasn't usable anymore (meaning it looked like
locked up, frozen/gone mouse cursor even). I managed to switch back to
console and set it to 0 and all was OK again.
The interactive to 0 setting helped me with runnign locally multiple
processes using mpi. Nevertheless (only with interactive 1 regression to
vanilla scheduler, else same) can't this be enhanced?
Details: I am working on a load balancing class using mpi. For testing
purpises I am running multiple processes on my machine. So for a given
problem I can say, it needs x time to solve. Using more processes opn a
single machine, this time (except communication and balancing overhead)
shouldn't be much larger. Unfortunately this happens. Eg. a given
probelm using two processes needs about 20 seconds to finish. But using
8 it already needs 47s (55s with interactiv set to 1). No, my balancing
framework is quite good. On a real (small, even larger till 128 nodes
tested) cluster overhead is just as low as 3% to 5%, ie. it scales quite
linearly.
Any idea how to tweak the staircase to get near the 20 seconds with more
processes? Or is this rather a problem of mpich used locally?
If you like I can send you my code to test (beware it is not that small).
Cheers,
Prakash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBGfPZxU2n/+9+t5gRApa1AJ9j82Aujwj/IoGLqvDsX29y/dLu/wCglvse
bRV6zeWc+6z+ETl9Hxqleho=
=Jay6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-11 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20040811010116.GL11200@holomorphy.com>
2004-08-11 2:21 ` Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others) spaminos-ker
2004-08-11 2:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-11 2:45 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 2:47 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 3:23 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 3:31 ` Con Kolivas
2004-08-11 3:46 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 3:44 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-13 0:13 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-13 1:44 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-11 3:09 ` Con Kolivas
2004-08-11 10:24 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam [this message]
2004-08-11 11:26 ` Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series Con Kolivas
2004-08-11 12:05 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-08-11 19:22 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-08-11 23:42 ` Con Kolivas
2004-08-12 8:08 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-08-12 18:18 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-08-12 2:04 ` Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Piggin and others) spaminos-ker
2004-08-12 2:24 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-12 2:53 ` Con Kolivas
[not found] <411D50AE.5020005@bigpond.net.au>
2004-08-17 23:19 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-18 0:12 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-24 21:11 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-24 23:04 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-24 23:22 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-26 2:30 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-26 2:42 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-26 8:39 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-28 1:59 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-29 0:21 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-29 0:25 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-29 0:45 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-29 2:03 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-29 2:28 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-29 4:53 ` Peter Williams
2004-08-29 1:19 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-29 1:22 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-29 1:31 ` Peter Williams
2004-09-13 20:09 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-29 2:20 ` Lee Revell
[not found] <20040811093945.GA10667@elte.hu>
2004-08-17 23:08 ` spaminos-ker
2004-08-07 21:53 spaminos-ker
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=4119F3D9.7040708@gmx.de \
--to=prakashkc@gmx.de \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=spaminos-ker@yahoo.com \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.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