Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:26:37 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default Message-ID: <20111212192637.GA87729@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20111212190330.GA69380@sysmon.tcworks.net> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE22421.9060707@gmail.com> <4EE6060D.5060201@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111212155159.GB73597@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4EE6295B.3020308@cran.org.uk> <20111212170604.GA74044@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20111212190330.GA69380@sysmon.tcworks.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:03:30PM -0600, Scott Lambert wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:06:04AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > > Tuning kern.sched.preempt_thresh did not seem to help for > > my workload. My code is a classic master-slave OpenMPI > > application where the master runs on one node and all > > cpu-bound slaves are sent to a second node. If I send > > send ncpu+1 jobs to the 2nd node with ncpu's, then > > ncpu-1 jobs are assigned to the 1st ncpu-1 cpus. The > > last two jobs are assigned to the ncpu'th cpu, and > > these ping-pong on the this cpu. AFAICT, it is a cpu > > affinity issue, where ULE is trying to keep each job > > associated with its initially assigned cpu. > > > > While one might suggest that starting ncpu+1 jobs > > is not prudent, my example is just that. It is an > > example showing that ULE has performance issues. > > So, I now can start only ncpu jobs on each node > > in the cluster and send emails to all other users > > to not use those node, or use 4BSD and not worry > > about loading issues. > > Does it meet your expectations if you start (j modulo ncpu) = 0 > jobs on a node? > I've never tried to launch more than ncpu + 1 (or + 2) jobs. I suppose at the time I was investigating the issue, it was determined that 4BSD allowed me to get my work done in a more timely manner. So, I took the path of least resistance. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111212192637.GA87729>