From: Perez-Gonzalez, I. <ina...@in...> - 2002-12-19 01:04:30
|
> > forgot the kernel version (2.4.20aa1)... You need the O(1) scheduler; not sure if aa has it or not; if not, lots of processes will suck your machine. I think -ac has the O(1) scheduler, or try 2.5. The old scheduler is pretty cool but not as scalable as the new one. If it has it ... well, I have no idea - maybe Robert Love would know. Inaky Perez-Gonzalez -- Not speaking for Intel - opinions are my own [or my fault] |
From: Robert L. <rm...@te...> - 2002-12-19 01:13:16
|
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 20:04, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote: > > > > forgot the kernel version (2.4.20aa1)... > > You need the O(1) scheduler; not sure if aa has it or not; if not, lots of > processes will suck your machine. I think -ac has the O(1) scheduler, or try > 2.5. The old scheduler is pretty cool but not as scalable as the new one. > > If it has it ... well, I have no idea - maybe Robert Love would > know. 2.4-aa has the O(1) scheduler, yes. I think 15,000 processes may always suck, though :) Robert Love |
From: Alan C. <al...@lx...> - 2002-12-19 01:52:08
|
On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 01:04, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote: > > > > > forgot the kernel version (2.4.20aa1)... > > You need the O(1) scheduler; not sure if aa has it or not; if not, lots of > processes will suck your machine. I think -ac has the O(1) scheduler, or try > 2.5. The old scheduler is pretty cool but not as scalable as the new one. > > If it has it ... well, I have no idea - maybe Robert Love would know. He's running the -aa kernel, which has all the right bits for this too. In fact in some ways for very large memory boxes its probably the better variant |
From: William L. I. I. <wl...@ho...> - 2002-12-19 02:03:35
|
On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 01:04, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote: >> If it has it ... well, I have no idea - maybe Robert Love would know. On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 02:31:28AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > He's running the -aa kernel, which has all the right bits for this too. > In fact in some ways for very large memory boxes its probably the better > variant In my experience the most critical issues running 16K processes are: (1) the highmem footprint of the pte's is significant (2) the lowmem footprint of pmd's and most of the rest is in the noise. It's probably a bad idea to run top(1) or perhaps even mount /proc/ at all until top itself, proc_pid_readdir(), and the tasklist_lock are all fixed. Pretty much all he needs to "stay alive" is highpte of some flavor or another. Performance etc. is addressed somewhat more by 2.5.x than -aa, at least in the context of not degrading with this kind of multitasking. i.e. shpte and pidhash. I've been randomly shooting down do_each_thread() and for_each_process() loops in -wli, which is why I recommended it. Bill |