Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:28:08 -0800 | From | Jesse Barnes <> | Subject | Re: Node affine NUMA scheduler |
| |
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 03:54:12PM +0100, Erich Focht wrote: > Jesse, > > thanks for running the tests. Actually "hackbench" is a bad example for > the node affinity (though it's a good test for heavy scheduling). The code > forks but doesn't exec and therefore all hackbench tasks have the same > homenode. Also the tasks are not particularly memory bandwidth or latency > hungry, therefore node affinity won't speed them up. I'm actually glad > that they aren't slower, that shows that the additional overhead is small.
Alright, I'll try running some other numbers too, what can you recommend other than aim and kernel compiles?
> Thanks for sending the macros for SGI_SN1/2, I'll include them. You > probably use the DISCONTIGMEM patch, for that I append a small patch which > "couples" DISCONTIGEMEM with the node affine scheduler such that pages > will be allocated on the node current->node instead of the node on which > the task is currently running. Hackbench might slow down a bit but > AIM7 should improve.
Sounds good, I'll have to update those macros later too (Jack reminded me that physical node numbers aren't always the same as logical node numbers).
Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |