mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Tony Luck" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To: "Daniel J Blueman" <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rajib Majumder" <rajibm2005@gmail.com>,
	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel Scalability
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:54:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <12c511ca0705020954q1230ae85o9ab7ca609fd07507@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6278d2220705020843l718b3272k5d6ebf8b827d0806@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/2/07, Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are 128-processor IA64 systems which run recent 2.6 kernels out
> there; the per-processor counters, RCU and page-fault scalability work
> has been instrumental to the necessary scaling for decent resource
> usage on these.

128 cpu is a bit dated ... there are 512 and 1024 cpu systems being
used in production environments.  The highest reported count stands
at 4096 ... but that was only a prototype system, not a production
machine ... a small number of patches were needed to boot (e.g.
with 10 kernel daemons per cpu, a default kernel hits the maximum
number of process ids limit!).

The question of how well it scales is very workload dependent.  Most
of those high cpu count systems are running scientific workloads that
crunch numbers in user mode for 7.5 million years before making a
single syscall to print that the answer is 42. Obviously scaling of
such applications is near linear.

But your original question was about 4-8 cpus with 2.4/2.6 ... you
will almost certainly be a lot happier with a recent 2.6 kernel. A
great deal of work has been done to make it scale well.  But
there are still some dark corners that haven't been cleaned up
so you will have to run your target application and make your
own measurments on scaling.  If you find that it doesn't scale
well, then we'd like to hear about it here.

-Tony

  reply	other threads:[~2007-05-02 16:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-05-02 15:43 Daniel J Blueman
2007-05-02 16:54 ` Tony Luck [this message]
2007-05-02 17:39 ` l.genoni
2007-05-02 18:06   ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-04 16:45   ` Christoph Lameter
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-05-02 12:56 Rajib Majumder
2007-05-02 16:54 ` Kevin Fox
2007-05-04 16:43   ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-02 17:55 ` Eric W. Biederman

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=12c511ca0705020954q1230ae85o9ab7ca609fd07507@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=daniel.blueman@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rajibm2005@gmail.com \
    /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®