linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101119145505.GO6554@const.bordeaux.inria.fr>
Date:	Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:55:05 +0100
From:	Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@...la.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>, david@...g.hm,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups

Peter Zijlstra, le Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:43:13 +0100, a écrit :
> > MPI jobs typically communicate with each other. Keeping them on the same
> > socket permits to keep shared-memory MPI drivers to mostly remain in
> > e.g. the L3 cache. That typically gives benefits.
> 
> Pushing them away permits them to use a larger part of that same L3
> cache allowing them to work on larger data sets.

But then you are not benefitting from all CPU cores.

> Most of the MPI apps
> have a large compute to communication ratio because that is what allows
> them to run in parallel so well (traditionally the interconnects were
> terribly slow to boot), that suggests that working on larger data sets
> is a good thing and running on the same node really doesn't matter since
> communication is assumes slow anyway.

Err, if the compute to communication ratio is big, then you should use
all CPU cores, up to the point where communication becomes a matter
again, and making sure that related MPI processes end up on the same
socket will permit to got a it further.

> There really is no simple solution to his.

I never said there was even a solution, actually (in particular any kind
of generic solution), but that there are a a few simple ways exist to
make things better.

Samuel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/