Re: NUMA scheduler (was: 2.5 merge candidate list 1.5)

["Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>]

>> I didn't modify what you sent me at all ... perhaps my machine is
>> just faster than yours?
>> 
>> /me ducks & runs ;-)
> 
> :-)))
> 
> I tried with IA32, too ;-) With PROBLEMSIZE=1000000 I get on a 2.8GHz
> XEON something around 16s. On a 1.6GHz Athlon it's 22s. Both times running
> ./numa_test 2 on a dual CPU box. The usertime is pretty independent of the
> OS, (but the scheduling influences it a lot).

I have 700MHz P3 Xeons, but I have 2Mb L2 cache on them which is much
better than the newer chips. That might make a big differernce.
 
> But: you have a node level cache! Maybe the whole memory is inside that
> one and then things can go really fast. Hmmm, I guess I'll need some
> cache detection in the future to enforce that the BM really runs in
> memory... Increasing PROBLEMSIZE might help, but we can do that later,
> when testing affinity (I'm not giving up on this idea... ;-)

Yup, 32Mb cache. Not sure if it's faster than local memory or not.

M.