In any case, it would appear 2.5ms is to short. While auto-config timing
continues development, it would appear upping that 2.5ms time to 5-10ms
would be in order, 5ms would in all cases be better than 2.5, while 10ms
would appear to be better in most cases, and a good compromise between the
5ms cases and the 87ms cases.
Also, the article points out that the current 2.5ms time is applied in
non-NUMA cases. A couple sentences or a paragraph mentioning how NUMA
treatment differs would have been in order. It should obviously be a
higher time, 87ms as mentioned in the one case, as NUMA means potentially
moving data in main memory as well as cache, but is that also a set value
and what is it (a single sentence mentioning the NUMA value), or is that
already calculated dynamically (up to a paragraph if the dynamic
calculation can be explained easily at a high level, a couple sentences
giving an expected range for comparison purposes and stating further
detail is beyond the scope of the article, otherwise)?
This is of particular interest here, as I'm running a dual Opteron in NUMA
mode, 512 MB hung off of each CPU.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds