Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3
From: Nick Piggin
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 22:56:58 EST
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 07:31:37AM -0800, Nakajima, Jun wrote:
Can you be more specific with "it doesn't load balance threads
aggressively enough"? Or what behavior of the base NUMA scheduler is
missing in the sched-domain scheduler especially for NUMA?
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.
Sorry I keep telling you I'll work on this, but I never get
around to it. Mostly lack of hardware makes it difficult. I've
fixed a few bugs and some other workloads, so I keep hoping
that they will fix your problem :P
Your STREAM performance is really bad and I hope you don't
think I'm going to ignore it even if it is a bit stupid. Give
me a bit more time.
Of course, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with
sched-domains that is causing your problem. It can easily do
anything the old numa scheduler can do. It must be a bug or
some bad tuning somewhere.
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/