From: Jie Chen <chen@jlab.org>
To: "Simon Holm Thøgersen" <odie@cs.aau.dk>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:58:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4744F042.4070002@jlab.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1195698770.11808.4.camel@odie.local>
Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> ons, 21 11 2007 kl. 20:52 -0500, skrev Jie Chen:
> There is a backport of the CFS scheduler to 2.6.21, see
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/19/127
>
Hi, Simon:
I will try that after the thanksgiving holiday to find out whether the
odd behavior will show up using 2.6.21 with back ported CFS.
>>>> Kernel 2.6.21
>>>> Number of Threads 2 4 6 8
>>>> SpinLock (Time micro second) 10.5618 10.58538 10.5915 10.643
>>>> (Overhead) 0.073 0.05746 0.102805 0.154563
>>>> Barrier (Time micro second) 11.020410 11.678125 11.9889 12.38002
>>>> (Overhead) 0.531660 1.1502 1.500112 1.891617
>>>>
>>>> Each thread is bound to a particular core using pthread_setaffinity_np.
>>>>
>>>> Kernel 2.6.23.8
>>>> Number of Threads 2 4 6 8
>>>> SpinLock (Time micro second) 14.849915 17.117603 14.4496 10.5990
>>>> (Overhead) 4.345417 6.617207 3.949435 0.110985
>>>> Barrier (Time micro second) 19.462255 20.285117 16.19395 12.37662
>>>> (Overhead) 8.957755 9.784722 5.699590 1.869518
>>>>
>
>
> Simon Holm Thøgersen
>
>
I just ran a simple test to prove that the problem may be related to
load balance of the scheduler. I first started 6 processes using
"taskset -c 2 donothing&; taskset -c 3 donothing&; ..., taskset -c 7
donothing". These 6 processes will run on core 2 to 7. Then I started my
test program using two threads bound to core 0 and 1. Here is the result:
Two threads on Kernel 2.6.23.8:
SpinLock (Time micro second) 10.558255
(Overhead) 0.068965
Barrier (Time micro second) 10.865520
(Overhead) 0.376230
Similarly, I started 4 donothing processes on core 4, 5, 6 and 7, and
ran the test program. I have the following result:
Four threads on Kernel 2.6.23.8:
SpinLock (Time micro second) 10.579413
(Overhead) 0.090023
Barrier (Time micro second) 11.363193
(Overhead) 0.873803
Finally, here is the result for 6 threads with two donothing processes
running on core 6 and 7:
Six threads on Kernel 2.6.23.8:
SpinLock (Time micro second) 10.590030
(Overhead) 0.100940
Barrier (Time micro second) 11.977548
(Overhead) 1.488458
Now the above results are very much similar to the results obtained for
the kernel 2.6.21. I hope this helps you guys in some ways. Thank you.
--
#############################################################################
# Jie Chen
# Scientific Computing Group
# Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
# Newport News, VA 23606
#
# chen@jlab.org
# (757)269-5046 (office)
# (757)269-6248 (fax)
#############################################################################
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-22 2:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-21 20:34 Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above Jie Chen
2007-11-21 22:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-11-22 1:52 ` Jie Chen
2007-11-22 2:32 ` Simon Holm Thøgersen
2007-11-22 2:58 ` Jie Chen [this message]
2007-11-22 20:19 ` Matt Mackall
2007-12-04 13:17 ` Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4 Ingo Molnar
2007-12-04 15:41 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 15:29 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 15:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 16:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-12-05 16:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 16:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-12-05 16:22 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 17:47 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 20:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 20:23 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 20:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 20:52 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 21:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 22:16 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-06 10:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-06 16:29 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-10 10:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-10 20:04 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 10:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 15:28 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 15:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 16:39 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 21:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 22:11 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-12 12:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-12-05 20:36 ` Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above Peter Zijlstra
2007-12-05 20:53 ` Jie Chen
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=4744F042.4070002@jlab.org \
--to=chen@jlab.org \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=odie@cs.aau.dk \
/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