Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 17:00:21 EST
* Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> It doesn't do load balance in wake_up_forked_process() and is
> relatively non aggressive in balancing later. This leads to the
> multithreaded OpenMP STREAM running its childs first on the same node
> as the original process and allocating memory there. Then later they
> run on a different node when the balancing finally happens, but
> generate cross traffic to the old node, instead of using the memory
> bandwidth of their local nodes.
> The difference is very visible, even the 4 thread STREAM only sees the
> bandwidth of a single node. With a more aggressive scheduler you get 4
> times as much.
> Admittedly it's a bit of a stupid benchmark, but seems to
> representative for a lot of HPC codes.
There's no way the scheduler can figure out the scheduling and memory
use patterns of the new tasks in advance.
but userspace could give hints - e.g. a syscall that triggers a
rebalancing: sys_sched_load_balance(). This way userspace notifies the
scheduler that it is on 'zero ground' and that the scheduler can move it
to the least loaded cpu/node.
a variant of this is already possible, userspace can use setaffinity to
load-balance manually - but sched_load_balance() would be automatic.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/