Paul Jackson wrote:
Ingo wrote:if you create a sched-domains hierarchy (based on the SLIT tables, or in whatever other way) that matches the CPU hierarchy then you'll automatically get the proper distances detected.Yes - agreed. I should push in the direction of improving the SN2 sched domain hierarchy.
I'd just be a bit careful about this. Your biggest systems will have what? At least 7 or 8 domains if you're just going by the number of hops, right? And maybe more if there is more to your topology than just number of hops. sched-domains firstly has a few problems even with your 2 level NUMA domains (although I'm looking at fixing them if possible), but also everything just has to do more work as you traverse the domains and scan all CPUs for balancing opportunities. And its not like the cpu scheduler uses any sort of exact science to make choices... Nick - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- RE: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels
- From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]>
- [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- RE: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels
- Prev by Date: [RFC 2/6]cpu_sibling_map rework
- Next by Date: [RFC 4/6]Add kconfig for S3 SMP
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry db benchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]
- Index(es):
 |