Re: NUMA scheduler (was: 2.5 merge candidate list 1.5)

[Erich Focht]

On Monday 28 October 2002 18:36, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> Schedbench 4:
> >>                              Elapsed   TotalUser    TotalSys     AvgUser
> >>               2.5.44-mm4       32.45       49.47      129.86        0.82
> >>       2.5.44-mm4-focht-1       38.61       45.15      154.48        1.06
> >>       2.5.44-mm4-hbaum-1       37.81       46.44      151.26        0.78
> >>      2.5.44-mm4-focht-12       23.23       38.87       92.99        0.85
> >>      2.5.44-mm4-hbaum-12       22.26       34.70       89.09        0.70
> >>         2.5.44-mm4-f1-h2       21.39       35.97       85.57        0.81
> >
> > One more remarks:
> > You seem to have made the numa_test shorter. That reduces it to beeing
> > simply a check for the initial load balancing as the hackbench running in
> > the background (and aimed to disturb the initial load balancing) might
> > start too late. You will most probably not see the impact of node
> > affinity with such short running tests. But we weren't talking about node
> > affinity, yet...
>
> I didn't modify what you sent me at all ... perhaps my machine is
> just faster than yours?
>
> /me ducks & runs ;-)

Aaargh, now I understand!!! You just have wrong labels in your table,
they are permuted! More sense makes:

> >>                              AvgUser       Elapsed   TotalUser    TotalSys
> >>               2.5.44-mm4       32.45       49.47      129.86        0.82
> >>       2.5.44-mm4-focht-1       38.61       45.15      154.48        1.06
> >>       2.5.44-mm4-hbaum-1       37.81       46.44      151.26        0.78
> >>      2.5.44-mm4-focht-12       23.23       38.87       92.99        0.85
> >>      2.5.44-mm4-hbaum-12       22.26       34.70       89.09        0.70
> >>         2.5.44-mm4-f1-h2       21.39       35.97       85.57        0.81

Regards,
Erich