Christoph Lameter wrote on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:50 PM
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > What broke the system was the disabling of interrupts over long time
> > > periods during load balancing.
> > The previous global load balancing tasket could be an interesting data point.
>
> Yup seems also very interesting to me. We could drop the staggering code
> f.e. if we would leave the patch as is. Maybe there are other ways to
> optimize the code because we know that there are no concurrent
> balance_tick() functions running.
>
> > Do you see a lot of imbalance in the system with the global tasket? Does it
> > take prolonged interval to reach balanced system from imbalance?
>
> I am rather surprised that I did not see any problems but I think we would
> need some more testing. It seems that having only one load balance
> running at one time speeds up load balacing in general since there is
> less lock contention.
I ran majority of micro-benchmarks from LKP project with global load
balance tasklet. (http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net)
Result is here:
http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/sched/global-load-bal.txt
All results are within noise range. The global tasklet does a fairly good job especially on context switch intensive workload like
aim7, volanomark, tbench
etc. Note all machines are non-numa platform.
Base on the data, I think we should make the load balance tasklet one per numa
node instead of one per CPU.
- Ken
-
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]
