Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: > On 6/5/07, youshi10_at_u.washington.edu <youshi10_at_u.washington.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote: >> >> > On 6/4/07, Alexey Tarasov <master_at_preved.cn> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> >> >> > options SCHED_4BSD # 4BSD scheduler >> >> >> >> Try to use SCHED_ULE or SCHED_CORE. >> >> >> >> ::[ | | | | ]:: >> >> Alexey Tarasov >> >> master_at_preved.cn >> > >> > I thought Davidxu removed SCHED_CORE for SCHED_ULE, am I missing >> something? >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > >> > -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri >> > Arab Portal >> > http://www.WeArab.Net/ >> >> I think so. Try SCHED_ULE. >> >> -Garrett > > I'm using ULE now, and I see mysqld could use 104%in WCPU. > > But do you know why services still share the cpu0 instead of using CPU1 > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND > 598 mysql 16 44 0 639M 633M ucond 0 50:53 4.83% mysqld > 740 services 3 44 0 54292K 51352K select 0 3:08 0.00% services > > I wish kernel can balance using both CORES with ULE 2.0 ULE currently uses some tricks in order to avoid too many sched_lock acquisitions that pessimize in load balancing and in pick_pri case. In the night, I think Jeff is going to commit the infrastructure to let sched_lock back home and soon we will have ULE sched_lock free. It means that we could really have a good balancing and an effective usage of pick_pri for it. As saying: it is a known bug, and partially intentional... AttilioReceived on Mon Jun 04 2007 - 19:49:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:11 UTC