On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:08 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > Diffprofile is wacko (HZ seems to be defaulting to 250 in -mm).
> > >
> > > Oh crap, so it does. That's wrong.
> >
> > Email by you and Linus indicated that 250 should be the default.
>
> Oh, OK. hrm.
>
> Martin, it would be useful if you could determine whether the kernbench
> slowdown was due to the 1000Hz->250Hz change, thanks.
>
> I'm assuming it was the CPU scheduler patches. There are 36 of them ;)
I'm looking at some issues with the scheduler patches.
To start with, it looks like the smp-nice patches are broken. Even if
they weren't I think it might be a good idea just to put them on hold
until we work out what to do with the other sched patches... we're
only just starting to get some interesting tests (ie. regressions) being
run on -mm (at least that I've been made aware of). So give me a bit of
time to work though that.
Anyway, Con, this is what it is doing on a 64-way Altix running aim7:
(compare imbalances, task move rates, wakeup move rates, etc).
--- wakeup statistics ---
269.174 task wakes / s
31.704% of them from the local CPU
14.190% of remote wakeups come from domain0
0.000% are moved to the local CPU via passive load balancing
26.660% are moved to the local CPU via affine wakeups
46.672% of remote wakeups come from domain1
10.359% are moved to the local CPU via passive load balancing
0.000% are moved to the local CPU via affine wakeups
39.012% of remote wakeups come from domain2
10.659% are moved to the local CPU via passive load balancing
0.000% are moved to the local CPU via affine wakeups
--- load balancing statistics ---
for domain0
4368.652 load balance calls / s move 137.083 tasks / s
96.456% calls and 1.174% task moves came from idle balancing
0.042% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 566.708
0.038% found an imbalance but failed
6.165% of tasks moved were cache hot
1.818% calls and 73.086% task moves came from busy balancing
47.694% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 335.932
4.704% found an imbalance but failed
0.140% of tasks moved were cache hot
1.726% calls and 25.740% task moves came from new-idle balancing
26.938% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 198.054
9.136% found an imbalance but failed
0.151% of tasks moved were cache hot
0.000 active balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
0.000 exec balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
0.000 fork balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
for domain1
102.002 load balance calls / s move 180.344 tasks / s
85.398% calls and 17.496% task moves came from idle balancing
5.920% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 386.172
2.103% found an imbalance but failed
0.920% of tasks moved were cache hot
14.602% calls and 82.504% task moves came from busy balancing
69.017% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 702.928
5.849% found an imbalance but failed
0.075% of tasks moved were cache hot
0.000% calls and 0.000% task moves came from new-idle balancing
0.048 active balances / s move 0.002 tasks / s
%95.000 attempts failed
0.000 exec balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
0.000 fork balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
for domain2
9.496 load balance calls / s move 13.070 tasks / s
91.335% calls and 32.327% task moves came from idle balancing
21.094% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 115.513
16.936% found an imbalance but failed
2.978% of tasks moved were cache hot
8.665% calls and 67.673% task moves came from busy balancing
64.118% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 503.867
17.353% found an imbalance but failed
0.383% of tasks moved were cache hot
0.000% calls and 0.000% task moves came from new-idle balancing
0.007 active balances / s move 0.007 tasks / s
%0.000 attempts failed
0.000 exec balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
0.000 fork balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
And this is what it looks like with smpnice #if'ed out:
--- wakeup statistics ---
331.734 task wakes / s
25.492% of them from the local CPU
13.601% of remote wakeups come from domain0
0.000% are moved to the local CPU via passive load balancing
1.674% are moved to the local CPU via affine wakeups
44.484% of remote wakeups come from domain1
3.139% are moved to the local CPU via passive load balancing
0.000% are moved to the local CPU via affine wakeups
42.088% of remote wakeups come from domain2
0.000% are moved to the local CPU via passive load balancing
0.000% are moved to the local CPU via affine wakeups
--- load balancing statistics ---
for domain0
3940.070 load balance calls / s move 3.671 tasks / s
96.488% calls and 48.889% task moves came from idle balancing
0.068% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 1.132
0.029% found an imbalance but failed
3.135% of tasks moved were cache hot
1.339% calls and 33.563% task moves came from busy balancing
2.319% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 1.037
0.069% found an imbalance but failed
0.228% of tasks moved were cache hot
2.173% calls and 17.548% task moves came from new-idle balancing
1.259% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 1.008
0.516% found an imbalance but failed
3.057% of tasks moved were cache hot
0.006 active balances / s move 0.006 tasks / s
%0.000 attempts failed
0.000 exec balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
0.000 fork balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
for domain1
86.378 load balance calls / s move 2.644 tasks / s
94.236% calls and 89.468% task moves came from idle balancing
4.116% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 1.123
1.597% found an imbalance but failed
4.281% of tasks moved were cache hot
5.764% calls and 10.532% task moves came from busy balancing
6.667% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 1.008
1.130% found an imbalance but failed
0.000% of tasks moved were cache hot
0.000% calls and 0.000% task moves came from new-idle balancing
0.082 active balances / s move 0.017 tasks / s
%79.310 attempts failed
0.000 exec balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
0.000 fork balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
for domain2
9.024 load balance calls / s move 0.343 tasks / s
95.293% calls and 88.525% task moves came from idle balancing
12.103% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 1.003
8.701% found an imbalance but failed
14.815% of tasks moved were cache hot
4.707% calls and 11.475% task moves came from busy balancing
16.556% were imbalanced with an average imbalance of 1.000
7.285% found an imbalance but failed
21.429% of tasks moved were cache hot
0.000% calls and 0.000% task moves came from new-idle balancing
0.008 active balances / s move 0.008 tasks / s
%0.000 attempts failed
0.000 exec balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
0.000 fork balances / s move 0.000 tasks / s
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
