Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jie Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
I just ran the same test on two 2.6.24-rc4 kernels: one with
CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED on and the other with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
off. The odd behavior I described in my previous e-mails were still
there for both kernels. Let me know If I can be any more help. Thank
you.
ok, i had a look at your data, and i think this is the result of the
scheduler balancing out to idle CPUs more agressively than before. Doing
that is almost always a good idea though - but indeed it can result in
"bad" numbers if all you do is to measure the ping-pong "performance"
between two threads. (with no real work done by any of them).
My test code are not doing much work but measuring overhead of various
synchronization mechanisms such as barrier and lock. I am trying to see
the scalability of different implementations/algorithms on multi-core
machines.
the moment you saturate the system a bit more, the numbers should
improve even with such a ping-pong test.
You are right. If I manually do load balance (bind unrelated processes
on the other cores), my test code perform as well as it did in the
kernel 2.6.21.
do you have testcode (or a modification of your testcase sourcecode)
that simulates a real-life situation where 2.6.24-rc4 performs not as
well as you'd like it to see? (or if qmt.tar.gz already contains that
then please point me towards that portion of the test and how i should
run it - thanks!)
The qmt.tar.gz code contains a simple test program call pthread_sync
under the src directory. You can change the number of threads by setting
QMT_NUM_THREADS environment variable. You can build the qmt by doing
configure --enable-public-release. I do not have Intel quad core
machines, I am not sure whether the behavior will show up on Intel
platform. Our cluster is dual quad-core opteron which has its own
hardware problem :-).
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/04/237248&from=rss
Ingo
Hi, Ingo:
My test code qmt can be found at ftp://ftp.jlab.org/pub/hpc/qmt.tar.gz.
There is a minor performance issue in qmt pointed out by Eric, which I
have not put into the tar ball yet. If I can be any help, please let me
know. Thank you very much.
--
###############################################
Jie Chen
Scientific Computing Group
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
12000, Jefferson Ave.
Newport News, VA 23606
(757)269-5046 (office) (757)269-6248 (fax)
[email protected]
###############################################
--
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]
