From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>
To: Mike Kravetz <mkravetz@sequent.com>
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CPU affinity & IPI latency
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 07:54:20 +1200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010714075420.A5596@weta.f00f.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010712164017.C1150@w-mikek2.des.beaverton.ibm.com> <XFMail.20010712172255.davidel@xmailserver.org> <20010712173641.C11719@work.bitmover.com> <20010713100521.D1137@w-mikek2.des.beaverton.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010713100521.D1137@w-mikek2.des.beaverton.ibm.com>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 10:05:21AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
It is clear that the behavior of lat_ctx bypasses almost all of
the scheduler's attempts at CPU affinity. The real question is,
"How often in running 'real workloads' are the schduler's attempts
at CPU affinity bypassed?".
When encoding mp3s on a dual processor system, naturally I try to
encode two at once.
Most of the time this works as expected, one processed more or less
sticks to each CPU. However, I have noticed that if for some reason,
a third process has to be scheduled (which is inevitable if you
actually want to do anything), then these two processes seem to bounce
back and forward for a few seconds, _even_ after this CPU spike has
gone.
Now, I'm not sure if I'm imagining this or not, as I said, I have two
CPUs and two CPU-bound tasks, to instrument this as all, I really have
to affect what I am looking at (rather like the uncertainty principal)
so I assumed that perhaps my programs to read and process
/proc/<n>/cpu was simply eating several cycles and each process was
yielding more or less at random causing what I saw seeing.
--cw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-07-13 19:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-07-12 23:40 Mike Kravetz
2001-07-13 0:22 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-07-13 0:36 ` Larry McVoy
2001-07-13 2:06 ` Mark Hahn
2001-07-13 16:41 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-07-13 17:31 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-07-13 19:17 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-07-13 19:39 ` [Lse-tech] " Gerrit Huizenga
2001-07-13 20:05 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-07-13 17:05 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-07-13 19:51 ` David Lang
2001-07-13 22:43 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-07-15 20:02 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-07-15 20:10 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2001-07-15 20:15 ` Andi Kleen
2001-07-15 20:31 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-07-16 15:46 ` [Lse-tech] " Mike Kravetz
2001-07-13 19:54 ` Chris Wedgwood [this message]
2001-07-15 7:42 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2001-07-15 9:05 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2001-07-15 17:00 ` Troy Benjegerdes
2001-07-16 0:58 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-07-14 3:25 Hubertus Franke
2001-07-16 16:14 ` Mike Kravetz
2001-07-16 21:25 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-07-16 10:10 Hubertus Franke
2001-07-16 16:16 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-07-16 18:26 Hubertus Franke
2001-07-16 21:45 Hubertus Franke
2001-07-16 22:56 ` Davide Libenzi
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=20010714075420.A5596@weta.f00f.org \
--to=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm@bitmover.com \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mkravetz@sequent.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®