On 26/11/2007, Micah Dowty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The application doesn't really depend on the load-balancer's decisions
> per se, it just happens that this behaviour I'm seeing on NUMA systems
> is extremely bad for performance.
>
> In this context, the application is a virtual machine runtime which is
> executing either an SMP VM or it's executing a guest which has a
> virtual GPU. In either case, there are at least three threads:
>
> - Two virtual CPU/GPU threads, which are nice(0) and often CPU-bound
> - A low-latency event handling thread, at nice(-10)
>
> The event handling thread performs periodic tasks like delivering
> timer interrupts and completing I/O operations.
Are I/O operations initiated by these "virtual CPU/GPU threads"?
If so, would it make sense to have per-CPU event handling threads
(instead of one global)? They would handle I/O operations initiated
from their respective CPUs to (hopefully) achieve better data locality
(esp. if the most part of the involved data is per-CPU).
Then let the load balancer to evenly distribute the "virtual CPU/GPU
threads" or even (at least, as an experiment) fix them to different
CPUs as well?
sure, the scenario is highly dependent on a nature of those
'events'... and I can just speculate here :-) (but I'd imagine
situations when such a scenario would scale better).
>
> Thank you again,
> --Micah
>
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
-
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]
