> On 13 сент. 2015 г., at 16:09, Slawa Olhovchenkov <s...@zxy.spb.ru> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 02:52:08PM +0300, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I have 32 processor machine (2x CPU E5-2650) running several CPU-bound >> processes (ULE scheduler). >> 3 processes are 32-threaded, and 8 are single threaded. >> >> I bind all 3 32-threaded processes to CPUs 0-24 (cpuset -C -l 0-24 -p XXX). >> >> I expect that the remaining 8 single-threaded processes will (mostly) run on >> the remaining 25-31 CPU cores and use (almost) 100% cpu each. >> >> But this is not the case (according to top(1)): they spend a lot of time on >> 0-24 CPUs and CPU Idle time is about 10%. >> >> These are all purely computational programs, in idle system single-threaded >> programs steadily consume 100% of a core, and 32-threaded programs consume >> all 32 cores and idle time is zero. >> >> Is it an ULE scheduler feature or am I doing something wrong? >> >> The goal is to give a single-threaded program a chance to run when somebody >> started several 32-threaded processes. > > You don't have 32 processor machine, you have only 16 processor > machine. > SMT/hyperthreading don't give real processor, SMT "CPU" have > unpredicable power and his load depend on load parent CPU. > > For example, for my case I see such condition (simpliy) on CPU 0 and 1 > (SMT of one real core) with rise load: > > load 0.1 0.1 > load 0.2 0.2 > load 0.3 0.3 > load 0.4 0.4 > load 0.45 0.45 > load 0.48 0.48 > load 1.00 1.00\
Yes I know about HT. But how does this explain why I have 10% of CPU idle? If I explicitly bind my single-threaded processes to the remaining CPU cores (25-32), they start to receive expected 100% of CPU and overall Idle decreases. I just expect scheduler to do the same for me. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"