On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 22 December 2011 11:47, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > There is the additional observation in one of my 2008 > > emails (URLs have been posted) that if you have N+1 > > cpu-bound jobs with, say, job0 and job1 ping-ponging > > on cpu0 (due to ULE's cpu-affinity feature) and if I > > kill job2 running on cpu1, then neither job0 nor job1 > > will migrate to cpu1. ?So, one now has N cpu-bound > > jobs running on N-1 cpus. > > .. and this sounds like a pretty serious regression. Have you ever > filed a PR for it? >
Ah, so goods news! I cannot reproduce this problem that I saw 3+ years ago on the 4-cpu node, which is currently running a ULE kernel. When I killed the (N+1)th job, the N remaining jobs are spread across the N cpus. One difference between the 2008 tests and today tests is the number of available cpus. In 2008, I ran the tests on a node with 8 cpus, while today's test used only a node with only 4 cpus. If this behavior is a scaling issue, I can't currently test it. But, today's tests are certainly encouraging. -- Steve _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
