* Peter Zijlstra [2013-07-31 17:09:23]:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:16:50PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > I am not against fault and fault based handling is very much needed.
> > I have listed that this approach is complementary to numa faults that
> > Mel is proposing.
> >
> > Right
* Peter Zijlstra [2013-07-30 11:33:21]:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:45:43PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > Can you please suggest workloads that I could try which might showcase
> > why you hate pure process based approach?
>
> 2 processes, 1 sysvshm segment. I know there's
* Andrew Theurer [2013-07-31 08:33:44]:
> ------------
> VM-node00| 49153(006%) 673792(083%)51712(006%) 36352(004%)
>
> I think the consolidation is a nice concept, but it needs a much tighter
> integration with numa
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:16:50PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> I am not against fault and fault based handling is very much needed.
> I have listed that this approach is complementary to numa faults that
> Mel is proposing.
>
> Right now I think if we can first get the tasks to
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 13:18 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
> This results in much improved performance. Again I would assume this work
> is complementary to Mel's work with numa faulting.
>
> Here are the advantages of this
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 13:18 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
This results in much improved performance. Again I would assume this work
is complementary to Mel's work with numa faulting.
Here are the advantages of this
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:16:50PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
I am not against fault and fault based handling is very much needed.
I have listed that this approach is complementary to numa faults that
Mel is proposing.
Right now I think if we can first get the tasks to consolidate on
* Andrew Theurer haban...@linux.vnet.ibm.com [2013-07-31 08:33:44]:
------------
VM-node00| 49153(006%) 673792(083%)51712(006%) 36352(004%)
I think the consolidation is a nice concept, but it needs a much tighter
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2013-07-30 11:33:21]:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:45:43PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Can you please suggest workloads that I could try which might showcase
why you hate pure process based approach?
2 processes, 1 sysvshm segment. I know there's
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2013-07-31 17:09:23]:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:16:50PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
I am not against fault and fault based handling is very much needed.
I have listed that this approach is complementary to numa faults that
Mel is proposing.
* Peter Zijlstra [2013-07-30 11:10:21]:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:33:45PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:45:43PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Can you please suggest workloads that I could try which might showcase
> why you hate pure process based approach?
2 processes, 1 sysvshm segment. I know there's multi-process MPI
libraries out there.
Something like: perf
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:10:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:33:45PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM
* Peter Zijlstra [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
> > > This results in much improved
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:33:45PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > > Here is an approach that looks to
* Peter Zijlstra [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
> > > This results in much improved
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
> > This results in much improved performance. Again I would assume this work
> > is
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
> This results in much improved performance. Again I would assume this work
> is complementary to Mel's work with numa faulting.
I highly dislike the use of
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
This results in much improved performance. Again I would assume this work
is complementary to Mel's work with numa faulting.
I highly dislike the use of task
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
This results in much improved performance. Again I would assume this work
is complementary
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
This results in much
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:33:45PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Here is an approach that
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes.
This results in much
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:10:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:33:45PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:45:43PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Can you please suggest workloads that I could try which might showcase
why you hate pure process based approach?
2 processes, 1 sysvshm segment. I know there's multi-process MPI
libraries out there.
Something like: perf bench
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2013-07-30 11:10:21]:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:33:45PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2013-07-30 10:20:01]:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at
26 matches
Mail list logo
