>>>>> "Andi" == Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> writes: Andi> On Thursday 15 June 2006 20:44, Tony Luck wrote: >> Another alternative would be to provide a mechanism for a process >> to bind to the current cpu (whatever cpu that happens to be). Then >> the kernel gets to make the smart placement decisions, and >> processes that want to be bound somewhere (but don't really care >> exactly where) have a way to meet their need. Perhaps a cpumask of >> all zeroes to a sched_setaffinity call could be overloaded for >> this? Andi> I tried something like this a few years ago and it just didn't Andi> work (or rather ran usually slower) The scheduler would select a Andi> home node at startup and then try to move the process there. Andi> The problem is that not using a CPU costs you much more than Andi> whatever overhead you get from using non local memory. It all depends on your application and the type of system you are running on. What you say applies to smaller cpu counts. However once we see the upcoming larger count multi-core cpus become commonly available, this is likely to change and become more like what is seen today on larger NUMA systems. In the scientific application space, there are two very common groupings of jobs. One is simply a large threaded application with a lot of intercommunication, often via MPI. In many cases one ends up running a job on just a subset of the system, in which case you want to see threads placed on the same node(s) to minimize internode communication. It is desirable to either force the other tasks on the system (system daemons etc) onto other node(s) to reduce noise and there could also be space to run another parallel job on the remaining node(s). The other common case is to have jobs which spawn off a number of threads that work together in groups (via OpenMP). In this case you would like to have all your OpenMP threads placed on the same node for similar reasons. Not getting this right can result in significant loss of performance for jobs which are highly memory bound or rely heavily on intercommunication and synchronization. Andi> So by default filling the CPUs must be the highest priority and Andi> memory policy cannot interfere with that. I really don't think this approach is going to solve the problem. As Tony also points out, tasks will eventually migrate. The user needs to tell the kernel where it wants to run the tasks rather than the kernel telling the task where it is located. Only the application (or developer/user) knows how the threads are expected to behave, doing this automatically is almost never going to be optimal. Obviously the user needs visibility of the topology of the machine to do so but that should be available on any NUMA system through /proc or /sys. In the scientific space the jobs are often run repeatedly with new data sets every time, so it is worthwhile to spend the effort up front to get the placement right. One-off runs are obviously something else and there your method is going to be more beneficial. IMHO, what we really need is a more advanced way for user applications to hint at the kernel how to place it's threads. Cheers, Jes - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |