From: "Chulmin Kim" <cmkim@core.kaist.ac.kr>
To: "'Daniel Tiron'" <dtiron@debian.armed.us>
Cc: "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Does the scheduler know about the cache topology?
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:24:07 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <02c101cbc6b9$8aa68790$9ff396b0$@core.kaist.ac.kr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110207095141.GA26132@andariel.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
As far as I know, linux scheduler manages the physical cores using
sched_domain.
Simply speaking, Sched_domain is a group of cpus. And the load balancing is
usually done within the group.
(this group is hierarchical tree. you can find more specific information
about this structure in web)
This grouping can be done by SMT, NUMA and cache topology through ACPI
information obtained when the system is booted.
Hope this is useful for you.
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Tiron
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 6:52 PM
To: LKML
Subject: Does the scheduler know about the cache topology?
Hi all.
I did some performance tests on a Core 2 Quad machine [1] with QEMU.
A QEMU instance creates one main thread and one thread for each virtual CPU.
There were two vms with one CPU each, which make four threads.
I tried different combinations where I pinned one tgread to one physical
core with taskset and measured the network performance between the vms with
iperf [2]. The best result was achieved with each vm (main and CPU
thread) assigned to one cache group (core 0 & 1 and 2 & 3).
But it also turns out that letting the scheduler handle the assignment works
well, too: The results where no pinning was done were just slightly below
the best. So I was wondering, is the Linux scheduler aware of the CPU's
cache topology?
I'm curious to hear your opinion.
Thanks,
Daniel
[1] Core 0 and 1 share one L2 cache and so do 2 and 3 [2] The topic of my
research is networking performance. My interest in
cache awareness is only a side effect.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-07 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-07 9:51 Daniel Tiron
2011-02-07 10:10 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2011-02-07 11:24 ` Chulmin Kim [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='02c101cbc6b9$8aa68790$9ff396b0$@core.kaist.ac.kr' \
--to=cmkim@core.kaist.ac.kr \
--cc=dtiron@debian.armed.us \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®