On 1/25/2013 11:05 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
Many spinlocks are embedded in data structures; having many CPUs
pounce on the cache line the lock is in will slow down the lock
holder, and can cause system performance to fall off a cliff.
The paper "Non-scalable locks are dangerous" is a good
On 1/25/2013 11:05 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
Many spinlocks are embedded in data structures; having many CPUs
pounce on the cache line the lock is in will slow down the lock
holder, and can cause system performance to fall off a cliff.
The paper Non-scalable locks are dangerous is a good
On 01/26/2013 12:35 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
Many spinlocks are embedded in data structures; having many CPUs
pounce on the cache line the lock is in will slow down the lock
holder, and can cause system performance to fall off a cliff.
The paper "Non-scalable locks are dangerous" is a good
On 01/26/2013 12:35 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
Many spinlocks are embedded in data structures; having many CPUs
pounce on the cache line the lock is in will slow down the lock
holder, and can cause system performance to fall off a cliff.
The paper Non-scalable locks are dangerous is a good
On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 13:05 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 14:05 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > The performance issue observed with AIM7 is still a mystery.
> >
> > Hm. AIM7 mystery _may_ be the same crud I see on a 4 node 40
> > core
* Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 14:05 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > The performance issue observed with AIM7 is still a mystery.
>
> Hm. AIM7 mystery _may_ be the same crud I see on a 4 node 40
> core box. Stock scheduler knobs are too preempt happy, produce
> unstable
* Mike Galbraith bitbuc...@online.de wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 14:05 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
The performance issue observed with AIM7 is still a mystery.
Hm. AIM7 mystery _may_ be the same crud I see on a 4 node 40
core box. Stock scheduler knobs are too preempt happy, produce
On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 13:05 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith bitbuc...@online.de wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 14:05 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
The performance issue observed with AIM7 is still a mystery.
Hm. AIM7 mystery _may_ be the same crud I see on a 4 node 40
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 14:05 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The performance issue observed with AIM7 is still a mystery.
Hm. AIM7 mystery _may_ be the same crud I see on a 4 node 40 core box.
Stock scheduler knobs are too preempt happy, produce unstable results.
I twiddle them as below to
Many spinlocks are embedded in data structures; having many CPUs
pounce on the cache line the lock is in will slow down the lock
holder, and can cause system performance to fall off a cliff.
The paper "Non-scalable locks are dangerous" is a good reference:
Many spinlocks are embedded in data structures; having many CPUs
pounce on the cache line the lock is in will slow down the lock
holder, and can cause system performance to fall off a cliff.
The paper Non-scalable locks are dangerous is a good reference:
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 14:05 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
The performance issue observed with AIM7 is still a mystery.
Hm. AIM7 mystery _may_ be the same crud I see on a 4 node 40 core box.
Stock scheduler knobs are too preempt happy, produce unstable results.
I twiddle them as below to stabilize
12 matches
Mail list logo
