Re: [patch] sched: auto-tune migration costs [was: Re: Industry dbbenchmark result on recent 2.6 kernels]

[Paul Jackson]

Ingo wrote:
> if_ there is a significant hierarchy between CPUs it
> should be represented via a matching sched-domains hierarchy,

Agreed.

I'll see how the sched domains hierarchy looks on a bigger SN2 systems.

If the CPU hierarchy is not reflected in the sched-domain hierarchy any
better there, then I will look to involve the "SN2 sched domain
hierarchy experts" in improving SN2 the sched-domain hierarchy.

Ok - that works.  Your patch of yesterday provides just the tool
I need to measure this.  Cool.

> i'll first try the bottom-up approach to speed up detection (getting to
> the hump is very fast most of the time).

Good.

> then we can let the arch override the cpu_distance() method

I'm not aware we need that, yet anyway.  First I should see if
the SN2 sched_domains need improving.  Take a shot at doing it
'the right way' before we go inventing overrides.  I suspect
you agree.

> the migration cost matrix we can later use to tune all the other 
> sched-domains balancing related tunables as well

That comes close to my actual motivation here.  I hope to expose a
"cpu_distance" such as based on this cost matrix, to userland.

We already expose the SLIT table node distances (using SN2 specific
/proc files today, others are working on an arch-neutral mechanism).

As we push more cores and hyperthreads into a single package on one end,
and more complex numa topologies on the other end, this becomes
increasingly interesting to NUMA aware user software.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/