mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ludovic Drolez <ldrolez@linbox.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Poor scheduling when not loaded at 100% (Was: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:26:19 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <loom.20060920T181245-877@post.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4510F0FD.4060602@linbox.com>

Ludovic Drolez <ldrolez <at> linbox.com> writes:
> In fact, I tested the 1st patch on our cluster (Finite elements computing on 8 
> CPUs):
> - Under Windows: 875 seconds
> - Linux 2.6.16 : 1019 s
> - Linux 2.6.16 + manual taskset : 842 s
> - Linux 2.6.16 + Vincent's patch : 1373 s  

Anyone has an idea why the scheduling is poor when processes don't use all CPU ?

In the above example, we have 4 processes on 4 processors which use about 40% of
the CPU (computing and waiting for network packets).
1- If taskset is not used : CPU0 is used at 80%, and the 3 others at 30%. The
tasks are constantly migrated between cores -> poor performance (1019s), Windows
does better :-(
2- If taskset is used : All CPUs have 1 process and are used at 40%. No
migration -> high performance (842s), better than Windows :-)

I tried to play with the 'migration_cost' kernel parameter but it did not help.
By default, on the Bi-Xeon Dual Core MB (Dell 1855), migration_cost=1600, and
trying values up to 200000, did not improve performance...

Any Ideas ?

  Ludovic Drolez.






  reply	other threads:[~2006-09-20 16:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-03 13:41 [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP Vincent Pelletier
2006-09-03 17:10 ` Vincent Pelletier
2006-09-06 23:30   ` Vincent Pelletier
2006-09-19 14:06     ` Ludovic Drolez
2006-09-19 17:50       ` Antonio Vargas
2006-09-20  7:42         ` Ludovic Drolez
2006-09-20 16:26           ` Ludovic Drolez [this message]
2006-09-21 18:36           ` Vincent Pelletier
2006-09-22  7:24             ` Ludovic Drolez
2006-09-22 12:31               ` Antonio Vargas
2006-09-19 13:39 ` Ludovic
2006-09-22 14:24 Poor scheduling when not loaded at 100% (Was: [PATCH] sched.c: Be a bit more conservative in SMP) Al Boldi

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=loom.20060920T181245-877@post.gmane.org \
    --to=ldrolez@linbox.com \
    --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

Powered by JetHome