Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:14:56 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [CFT][RFC] HT scheduler |
| |
>> w26 does ALL this, while sched.o is 3K smaller than Ingo's shared >> runqueue >> patch on NUMA and SMP, and 1K smaller on UP (although sched.c is 90 lines >> longer). kernbench system time is down nearly 10% on the NUMAQ, so it >> isn't >> hurting performance either. > > > Hackbench performance on the NUMAQ is improved by nearly 50% at large > numbers of tasks due to a better scaling factor (which I think is slightly > "more" linear too). It is also improved by nearly 25% (4.08 vs 3.15) on > OSDLs 8 ways at small number of tasks, due to a better constant factor. > > http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/w26/hbench.png > > And yeah hackbench kills the NUMAQ after about 350 rooms. This is due to > memory shortages. All the processes are getting stuck in shrink_caches, > get_free_pages, etc.
Can you dump out the values of /proc/meminfo and /proc/slabinfo at that point, and we'll see what's killing her?
Thanks,
M.
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |