From: Andi K. <ak...@su...> - 2004-03-30 09:36:28
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:18:40 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mi...@el...> wrote: > > * Andi Kleen <ak...@su...> wrote: > > > > ok, could you try min_interval,max_interval and busy_factor all with a > > > value as 4, in sched.h's SD_NODE_INIT template? (again, only for testing > > > purposes.) > > > > I kept the old patch and made these changes. The results are much more > > consistent now 3+x CPU. I still get varyations of ~2GB/s, but I had > > this with older kernels too. > > great. > > now, could you try the following patch, against vanilla -mm5: > > redhat.com/~mingo/scheduler-patches/sched2.patch > > this includes 'context balancing' and doesnt touch the NUMA async > balancing tunables. Do you get better performance than with stock -mm5? I get better performance (roughly 2.1x CPU), but only about half the optimum. -Andi |