I ran into an issue that may or may not be on the radar. Here goes:
1. The old hyperthreading fix works well for an old PIV with
hyperthreading, so that with two sockets, and 4 logical processors, the
compute-bound processes get balanced across the sockets, which fixed the
original hyper-threading bug everyone talked about.
2. I now have a dual-socket Nehalem box, 4 cores per socket. Someone
wanted to test hyper-threading, which I had disabled, and I found an
It appears that the current process scheduling works fine for balancing
compute-bound processes across the two sockets to optimize cache
But with hyper-threading, things go wrong. If I run 4 compute-bound
processes on this box, they will run two per socket just fine. But on any
one chip, it is probable that the two processes will land on the same
core, which is not good.
My first thought was this needs a hiararchical approach. one big run
queue per socket, then N run queues per socket, one per physical core.
Now the load can be balanced across the two sockets / chips using the
"high-level" pair of queues, and then balanced across the physical cores
on each socket using the low-level queues, to avoid running two processes
on one physical core, and none on another.
Is a fix already in the works for this, or is this a new issue? I am
running 184.108.40.206 on this box. I am also not so happy with turbo-boost
either as it is giving some erratic timing data which I don't like for my
benchmark and tweak software development. But that's another issue. not
Robert M. Hyatt, Ph.D. Computer and Information Sciences
hyatt@xxxxxxx University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 136A Campbell Hall
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-smp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html