Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:03:30 -0600
From:      Scott Lambert <lambert@lambertfam.org>
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:  <20111212190330.GA69380@sysmon.tcworks.net>
In-Reply-To: <20111212170604.GA74044@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
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>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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?

-- 
Scott Lambert                    KC5MLE                       Unix SysAdmin
lambert@lambertfam.org




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111212190330.GA69380>