From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Robin@sgi.com, "Holt <holt"@sgi.com
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] Make x86 calibrate_delay run in parallel.
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:34:37 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1012160930010.12146@localhost6.localdomain6> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101215015849.051095242@gulag1.americas.sgi.com>
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Robin@sgi.com wrote:
> On a 4096 cpu machine, we noticed that 318 seconds were taken for bringing
> up the cpus. By specifying lpj=<value>, we reduced that to 75 seconds.
> Andi Kleen suggested we rework the calibrate_delay calls to run in
> parallel. With that code in place, a test boot of the same machine took
> 61 seconds to bring the cups up. I am not sure how we beat the lpj=
> case, but it did outperform.
If you know that all cpus are running at the same speed, then you can
set lpj=firstcpu and juts calibrate the first cpu and take the value
for all others.
> One thing to note is the total BogoMIPS value is also consistently higher.
> I am wondering if this is an effect with the cores being in performance
> mode. I did notice that the parallel calibrate_delay calls did cause the
We really to know that. I mean the change from:
> bogomips : 4532.81
> bogomips : 4532.65
> bogomips : 4532.64
> bogomips : 4532.64
to
> bogomips : 4533.49
> bogomips : 7890.05
> bogomips : 9699.67
> bogomips : 10047.13
looks strange. The deviation is more than factor 2 and this is on the
same socket. So before we push that into the tree we better know
what's going on.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-16 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-15 1:58 [RFC 0/2] Speed large x86_64 system boot by calling calibrate_delay() " Robin, Holt <holt
2010-12-15 1:58 ` [RFC 1/2] Pass loops_per_jiffy in and out of calibrate_delay() Robin, Holt <holt
2010-12-15 1:58 ` [RFC 2/2] Make x86 calibrate_delay run in parallel Robin, Holt <holt
2010-12-16 8:34 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2011-03-31 4:46 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-31 6:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 6:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 9:37 ` Robin Holt
2011-03-31 9:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 10:30 ` Avi Kivity
2011-03-31 10:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 10:49 ` Avi Kivity
2011-03-31 11:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-31 11:50 ` Robin Holt
2011-03-31 9:29 ` Robin Holt
2011-03-31 14:25 ` Yinghai Lu
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.1012160930010.12146@localhost6.localdomain6 \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc="Holt <holt"@sgi.com \
--cc=Robin@sgi.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.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®