Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4

* Jie Chen <[email protected]> wrote:

>> not "BARRIER time". I've re-read the discussion and found no hint 
>> about how to build and run a barrier test. Either i missed it or it's 
>> so obvious to you that you didnt mention it :-)
>>
>> 	Ingo
>
> Hi, Ingo:
>
> Did you do configure --enable-public-release? My qmt is for qcd 
> calculation (one type of physics code) [...]

yes, i did exactly as instructed.

> [...]. Without the above flag one can only test PARALLEL overhead. 
> Actually the PARALLEL benchmark has the same behavior as the BARRIER. 
> Thanks.

hm, but PARALLEL does not seem to do that much context switching. So 
basically you create the threads and do a few short runs to establish 
overhead? Threads do not get fork-balanced at the moment - but turning 
it on would be easy. Could you try the patch below - how does it impact 
your results? (and please keep affinity setting off)

	Ingo

----------->
Subject: sched: reactivate fork balancing
From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

reactivate fork balancing.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
---
 include/linux/topology.h |    3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

Index: linux/include/linux/topology.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/linux/topology.h
+++ linux/include/linux/topology.h
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@
 	.forkexec_idx		= 0,			\
 	.flags			= SD_LOAD_BALANCE	\
 				| SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE	\
+				| SD_BALANCE_FORK	\
 				| SD_BALANCE_EXEC	\
 				| SD_WAKE_AFFINE	\
 				| SD_WAKE_IDLE		\
@@ -134,6 +135,7 @@
 	.forkexec_idx		= 1,			\
 	.flags			= SD_LOAD_BALANCE	\
 				| SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE	\
+				| SD_BALANCE_FORK	\
 				| SD_BALANCE_EXEC	\
 				| SD_WAKE_AFFINE	\
 				| SD_WAKE_IDLE		\
@@ -165,6 +167,7 @@
 	.forkexec_idx		= 1,			\
 	.flags			= SD_LOAD_BALANCE	\
 				| SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE	\
+				| SD_BALANCE_FORK	\
 				| SD_BALANCE_EXEC	\
 				| SD_WAKE_AFFINE	\
 				| BALANCE_FOR_PKG_POWER,\
--
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:
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Jie Chen <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Jie Chen <[email protected]>
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Jie Chen <[email protected]>
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Jie Chen <[email protected]>
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Jie Chen <[email protected]>
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
    • From: Jie Chen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/3] wireless/libertas: don't cast a pointer to pointer of list_head
• Previous by thread: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
• Next by thread: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]